^ 

" 

^ 

CL 

*J^ 

.5 

5:^ 

IE 

.^-^ 

Q. 

'^ 

(0 

/ 

-h  

~^ 

.r!^                ^^ 

.£: 

.ir 

Q_ 

J"      ^ 

o 

$ 

-            O 

c 

luel  A 

:|' 

<•*         Izi 

E 

^T 

CO 

»< 
.^ 
ci 

(^ 

^ 

■^ 

■^»^ 

S 

CA 

Or 

>^ 

*^ 

-Q 

j:j 

^ 

"O 

•^i 

-<» 

(U 

•>^ 

C/J 

CL 

'•Jtciv  Col 

ScR 

^ 
^ 

/oi7z 


\^,  I 


AN 

ORAL  DISCUSSION 


ON 


JUSTIFICATION, 

THE  ACTION  OF  BAPTISM,  INFANT  BAPTISM 
AND  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM, 


BETWEEN 


REV.  S.  M.  MERRILL, 

PASTOR  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SPENCER  CHAPEL, 
PORTSMOUTH,  OHIO, 


ELDER  BENJ.  FRANKLIN, 

EVANGELIST  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST, 
CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

(Jommencirg  April  5th,  continuing  six  hours  each  day, 
and  closing  April  11th,  1858. 


"  If  they  gpeak  not  according?  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is 
no  light  in  them." 


CINCINNATI: 

PUBLISHED   BY  BENJ.  FRANKLIN. 

1858. 


PRINTED  BY 

G.  B.  BENTLEY  &  CO. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  is  substantially  the  dis- 
cussion held  in  Portsmouth,  Ohio,  though 
we  have  allowed  each  other  some  latitude, 
in  correcting,  amending  and  adding  some 
things  not  in  the  oral  discussion.  Some 
minor  matters  are  omitted,  repetitions 
avoided  and  changes  made,  though  the 
same  j)oints  are  discussed  and  more  thor- 
oughly investigated  here  than  in  the  oral 
debate.  The  speeches  were  written  out  by 
the  parties  as  they  now  apj^ear  in  print. 

We  mutually  agree  to  submit  our  speeches 
to  a  thinking  and  intelligent  public,  in  print 
and  in  the  same  order  as  delivered,  simply 
desiring  all  who  shall  read  them  solemnly 
to  examine  the  subjects  discussed  and  hon- 
estly to  decide  for  themselves,  as  they  shall 
answer  in  the  great  day.  Our  only  desire 
is,  that  truth  and  righteousness  may  pre- 
vail. Benj  Franklin. 

Ajml  14:(h,  1858.  S.  M.  Merrill. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/oraldiscussiononOOmerr 


-     *    v^ 

CORRESPONDENCi"^. 

V 

REV.  MERRILL'S  FIRST  LETTER.' 
Portsmouth,  Ohio,  Feb.  12,  1858. 
Eld.  B.  Franklin  :  My  apology  for  obtruding  myself 
upon  your  attention  is  found  in  the  extraordinary  posi- 
tion you  have  assumed.  You  came  here  not  as  a  m-n- 
ister  of  peace,  but  as  the  champion  of  a  dogma.  You 
denounce  the  ministry  of  this  city  as  ignorant  and  de- 
luded, if  not  wicked  and  hypocritical.  I  simply  desire 
to  furnish  you  an  opportunity  of  informing  yourself  bet- 
ter on  that  subject. 

It  is  my  custom  to  expound  the  subject  of  Baptism  in 
my  congregation  each  year,  and  no\v — as  soon  as  I  re- 
cover from  an  attack  of  hoarseness — I  propose  to  exam- 
ine the  subject  in  my  church,  as  you  have  done  in  yours. 
If  you  desire  to  hear  me,  and  will  indicate  when  you  can 
attend,  I  will  consult  your  convenience  as  to  time.  I 
shall  be  gratified  to  have  you  present. 

Most  respectfully,  S.  M.  Merrill. 

Pastor  of  M.  JE.  Church,  Spencer  Chapel. 

reply: 

Portsmouth,  Ohio,  Feb.  15,  1858. 
Rev.  Merrill — Bear  Sir :  Yours  of  the  12th  inst.  was 
not  received  till  I  was  nearly  ready  to  start  to  meeting 
last  night,  and  I  avail  myself  of  this,  the  earliest  oppor- 
tunity to  reply.  I  have  not  come  here  as  the  "  champion 
of  a  dogma,"  or  "aenouncing  the  ministry  of  this  city 
as  ignorant  and  deluded,  if  not  wicked  and  hypocritical," 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  have  come  preaching  '•'  peace 
by  Jesus  Christ;"  and,  as  fruits  of  my  labors,  have  gath- 
ered from  four  of  the  difierent  parties  here,  and  from  the 
world,  with  fifteen  Disciples  that  I  found  here,  fifty-seven 
persona  into  one  body. 


6  CORRESPONDENCE. 

But  the  object  of  this  brief  note  is  to  reply  to  your 
very  extraordinary  proposal  to  "furnish  me  the  oppor- 
tunity of  informing  myself  better,"  by  coming  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  or  fifteen  miles  to  hear  you  "  expound  bap- 
tism!" Now,  my  dear  sir,  you  have  had  the  field  here 
to  expound  baptism  and  everything  else  till  I  came,  and 
I  have  only  had  about  twenty  days,  so  that  I  certainly 
have  had  no  advantage  of  you  in  this  respect.  But  I 
propose  to  engage  the  largest  hall  in  the  city,  and  com- 
mence to-night,  and  will  hear  you  expound  baptism  for 
an  hour,  and  you  allow  me  an  hour  to  reply,  and  we  will 
thus  continue,  you  opening  with  an  address  of  an  hour 
and  allowing  me  the  same  length  of  time  to  reply,  from 
session  to  session,  till  you  are  satisfied.  If  this  will  not 
satisfy  you,  I  will  return  here  at  a  time  agreed  upon, 
when  we  will  pursue  the  course  described. 

I  have  pressing  engagements  and  cannot  stay  without 
great  sacrifice  and  disappointment,  but  for  your  accom- 
modation 1  will  remain.  Please  let  me  hear  from  you 
before  the  boat  leaves,  as  I  shall  go  on  the  "Bostona" 
if  you  do  not  meet  me. 

Respectfully  yours,       Benj.  Franklin. 

To  this  the  gentleman  made  no  reply  before  my  de- 
parture. B.  F. 


REV.  MERRILL'S  SECOND  LETTER. 

Portsmouth,  Ohio,  Feb.  15,  1858. 

Eld.  B.  Franklin  :  Yours  of  this  date  is  received. 
You  characterize  my  proposition  as  *'  extraordinary."  I 
knew  it  was  a  little  unusual,  but  did  not  suppose  it  would 
be  necessary  for  you  to  travel  so  far,  on  purpose  to  com- 
ply. But,  sir,  your  proposition  is  most  extraordinary. 
Without  stating  a  single  proposition  for  discussion,  or 
arranging  any  preliminary,  you  ask  me  to  come  to  your 
hall  and  lead  of — you,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  being 
on  the  afiSrmative — while  you  close  up  at  each  session. 
Now,  is  not  that  "  extraordinary?" 

I  based  the  remark  that  you  denounced  the  ministers 
of  this  city  as  ignorant,  etc.,  on  what  I  heard  while  sit- 
ting in  your  congregation,  and  on  what  I  heard  related 
by  othei's,  whose  word  is  unquestionable.  Such  a  course 
as  you  pursued  in  this  regard,  warrants  an  unusual  eflbrt 


CORRESPONDENCE.  7 

to  inform  you  better.  When  I  shall  have  preached  to 
my  people  on  the  subject,  as  I  propose  doing,  I  will  listen 
to  any  reasonable  proposition  for  discussion;  or,  I  might 
have  waived  that  privilege  to  have  met  a  definite,  well- 
defined  proposition,  coming  within  the  ordinary  rules  of 
discussion.  Respectfully,        S.  M.  Merrill. 

reply: 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  Feb.  17, 1858. 
Rev.  Merrill — Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  15th  was 
forwarded  to  my  address,  and  came  to  hand  this  morning, 
and  I  hasten  to  reply.  You  complain  that  I  did  not  send 
you  a  proposition.  I  did  not  do  this,  because  you  men- 
tioned the  subject  that  you  would  expound  to  inform  me  , 
and  I  thought  I  would  not  turn  you  aside  from  your  in- 
tended course,  except  so  far  as  to  arrange  for  me  to  re- 
ply. But  I  am  willing  to  do  almost  any  way  to  accom- 
modate you.  To  show  you  that  I  am  willing  to  treat 
you  fairly,  I  will  propose  to  procure  a  hall,  as  before 
proposed,  and  lead  the  way  myself,  allowing  you  to  oc- 
cupy the  same  time  in  reply  as  I  do  in  my  speeches.  This 
will  give  you  the  closing  speech  all  the  time.  If  this 
does  not  suit  you,  I  propose  the  following  propositions  : 

1.  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism? 

2.  Is  the  Initiatory  Ordinance  of  the  New  Testament 
Immersion? 

3.  Is  the  Initiatory  Ordinance  of  the  New  Testament 
Sprinkling  or  Pouring? 

4.  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  doctrine  of  Justifi- 
cation "  by  Faith  Only  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine  and 
very  full  of  comfort?" 

5.  Do  the  Scriptures  authorize  the  practice  of  the  M. 
E.  Church,  in  calling  mourners  forward  to  pray  and  be 
prayed  for,  as  a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion? 

6.  Is  Baptism,  "  administered  to  a  real  penitent,"  the 
initiatory  rite  into  a  state  of  Justification,  or  for  the  Re- 
mission of  Sins? 

7.  Is  the  Methodist  Discipline  a  better  rule  of  Faith, 
Doctrine,  Discipline  and  Law,  or  is  it  better  in  any  re- 
spect, for  the  people  of  God,  than  the  New  Testament? 

On  the  1st,  3rd,  4th,  5th  and  7th  propositions,  you  af- 
firm.   On  the  2nd  and  6th  propositions,  I  affirm.    I  pro- 


^  CORRESPONDENCE. 

pose  to  spend  about  one  day  on  each  of  these  proposi- 
tions. I  also  propose  that  we  agree  upon  the  earliest 
time  that  will  suit  our  arrangements;  each  of  us  choose 
a  moderator,  and  the  two  thus  chosen,  choose  a  third  as 
president  moderator;  the  duty  of  which  board  of  moder- 
ators shall  be  to  keep  order  in  the  assembly  and  confine 
the  speakers  to  the  question.  I  am  willing  that  we  adopt 
and  be  governed  by  the  rules  of  debate  laid  down  in 
Hedges'  Logic. 

Please  let  me  hear  from  you  at  your  earliest  conveni- 
ence. Respectfully  yours,        BexVj.  Franklin. 


REV.  MERRILL'S  THIRD  LETTER. 

Portsmouth,  Ohio,  Feb.  19,  1858. 

Eld.  B.  Franklin — Dear  Sir  :  Yours  of  the  17th  is 
just  received.  I  am  pleased  with  its  spirit.  It  looks 
like  you  were  really  willing  to  do  the  fair  thing.  I  hope 
you  will  feel  the  importance  of  this  yet  more  and  more. 

But,  my  dear  sir,  you  must  not  forget  the  circumstan- 
ces under  which  the  subject  began  to  be  agitated  in  this 
community.  You  came  here — as  you  had  a  right  to  do — 
and  put  forth  your  peculiar  views;  and,  in  addition,  de- 
nounced the  usages  and  doctrines  of  the  other  denomina- 
tions here  very  sharply,  to  say  the  least;  and  in  connection 
with  your  assaults  upon  other  churches,  you  defied  con- 
tradiction or  discussion.  Now  you  turn  round  and  pro- 
pose to  discuss  the  peculiar  features  of,  not  your  own 
theology,  so  much  as  the  prudential  arrangements  and  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  of  the  M.  E.  Chui-ch,  throwing  me  on 
the  affirmative  five-sevenths  of  the  time. 

I  have  only  to  reply,  that  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the 
M.  E.  Church,  her  Discipline — which  affirms  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  only  rule,  and  the  sufficient  rule,  both 
of  our  faith  and  practice — and  her  prudential  usages,  will 
take  care  of  themselves.  Whenever  you  find  a  Method- 
ist preacher  claiming  Divine  authority  for  the  "  mourn- 
er's bench,"  or  claiming  it  as  a  Divine  institution,  then 
ask  hivi  to  debate  the  question.  If  you  can  find  one 
grefin  enough  to  affirm  your  7th  proposition,  then  at  liim. 

Your  2nd  and  3rd  propositions  are  the  same,  only 
changing  the  order;  and  I  never  yet  affirmed  anything 
like  either  of  them.    They  are  indefinite,  and  subordi- 


CORRESPONDENCE.  9 

nate  to  other  questions;  and,  upon  the  whole,  not  worth 
the  labor  of  disputing  a  day.  Of  coiu-se,  I  speak  of  the 
initiatory  character  of  the  ordinance. 

Now,  sir,  I  think  a  man  of  your  experience  and  pre- 
tensions, after  commencing  the  agitation  of  the  subject 
of  Baptism,  as  you  did  here,  ought  to  expect  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  to  be  held  to  affirm  in  debate  what 
you  affirmed  in  preaching,  and  in  regard  to  which  you  so 
earnestly  challenged  discussion.  Whenever  you  are 
ready  to  affirm  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  I  shall  hold  myself  ready  to  respond, 
on  fair  and  honorable  terms. 

I  have  no  objections  to  your  suggestions  as  to  the  rules 
for  the  government  of  the  discussion.  And  if  you  de- 
sire to  insert  "  adult,"  or  "  believer,"  into  your  proposi- 
tion, so  as  to  debate  the  subjects  of  baptism,  I  am  per- 
fectly willing.  My  desire  is  to  get  at  the  real  issue. 
Nor  will  I  object  to  your  affirming  that  Baptism  is  the 
initiatory  rite  into  a  state  of  justification,  provided  you 
so  state  it  as  to  get  at  your  real  sentiments  in  regard  to 
baptismal  regeneration. 

What  is  here  proposed  will  give  wide  enough  range  to 
the  discussion;  and  certainly  you  should  not  expect,  un- 
der the  circumstances,  that  I  can  be  divei'ted  from  the 
issue  already  raised  by  yourself,  to  debate  incidental 
matters.    Please  answer  without  delay. 

Respectfully,  S.  M.  Merrill. 

reply: 
Clintonville,  Ky.,  Feb.  22,  1858. 
Rev.  Merrill — Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  the  19th  inst., 
forwarded  to  me  by  my  clerk,  has  just  come  to  hand,  and 
I  hasten  to  reply.  I  am  certainly  "  willing  to  do  the  fair 
thing,"  and  aim  at  nothing  else.  I  hope  you  are  will- 
ing to  do  the  same;  but,  as  yet,  you  appear  extremely 
cautious.  I  did,  when  I  saw  the  opposition  to  my  efforts 
in  your  city,  "defy  contradiction  or  discussion;"  nor  have 
I  repented  it.  I  stand  ready  to  defend  everything  that 
I  preached  while  with  you.  You  complained  of  my  as- 
sailing your  churches,  and  requested  me  to  present  prop- 
ositions. I  complied  with  your  request,  and  aimed  to 
so  shape  the  propositions  as  to  express  the  difference  be- 
tween us  as  nearly  as  possible.    The  simple  reason  why 


10  CX)RRESPONDENCE. 

there  are  more  affirmatives  for  you  than  myself,  is  that 
you  are  assailable  at  more  points  than  myself.  Even 
now,  you  do  not  propose  to  assail  me  at  but  one  point, 
and  tiiat  in  a  matter  that  I  do  not  hold,  and  repeatedly, 
in  your  cit3',  disavowed,  viz.,  "  Baptismal  Regeneration." 
The  case  now  stands  as  follows  : 

1 .  I  teach  and  practice  immersion  for  baptism.  I  am 
ready  to  affirm  that  immersion  13  baptism  and  defend  it. 
Will  you  deny  it? 

2.  You  teach  and  practice  sprinkling  for  baptism. 
Will  you  affirm  that  sprinkling  is  baptism  and  defend  it? 
If  you  will,  I  will  meet  you  and  deny  it. 

3.  You  teach  and  practice  infant  baptism.  Will  you 
affirm  and  defend  infant  baptism?  If  you  "will,  I  will 
meet  you  and  deny  it. 

4.  You  preach,  and  your  Discipline  affirms,  that  "  Jus- 
tification by  faith  only  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine  and 
very  full  of  comfort."  Will  you  affirm  and  defend  this? 
If  you  will,  I  will  meet  you  and  deny. 

5.  I  believe  that  baptism,  "  administered  to  real  peni- 
tents," is  for  the  remission  of  sins.  I  am  willing  to  af- 
firm this  and  defend  it.     Will  you  meet  me  and  deny  it? 

6.  You  enforce  your  Book  of  Discipline  upon  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  and  exclude  them  when  they  disobey  it. 
Will  you  affirm  and  defend  the  iise  you  make  of  this 
book?     If  you  will,  I  will  meet  you  and  deny  it. 

7.  You  continue  the  practice  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  in 
calling  mourners  forward  to  pray  and  be  prayed  for,  as 
a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion.  Will  you  affirm 
and  defend  this  practice?  If  you  will,  I  will  meet  you 
and  deny  it. 

I  am  not  asking  for  Divine  authority,  direct  or  indi- 
rect, for  the  "moui'ner's  bench,"  nor  asking  you  to  prove 
that  "it  is  a  Divine  institution,"  but  simply  asking  you 
to  defend  "the  practice  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  in  calling 
mourners  forward  to  pray  and  be  prayed  for,  as  a  part  of 
the  process  in  conversion."  I  find  plenty  of  Methodist 
preachers  "green  enough"  to  practice  this,  and  to  bind 
their  Discipline  upon  the  children  of  God,  and  exclude 
them  for  disobeying  it,  but  whether  I  shall  find  one 
"green  enough"  to  defend  this  practice,  in  fair  debate, 
is  yet  to  be  seen. 


CORRESPONDENCE.  11 

Yon  are  widely  mistaken  abont  my  second  and  third 
propositions  being  the  same.  One  is  arranged  for  me 
to  affirm  and  defend  my  practice,  and  the  otlier  for  you 
to  affirm  and  defend  your  practice.  If  you  say  that  tliere 
is  no  dispute  between  us  on  immei'sion — that  we  both 
afirce  that  immersion  is  baptism — as  a  matter  of  course 
there  is  no  need  of  debating  that  point.  The  question 
then  remains  concerning  your  practice.  As  a  matter  of 
course,  you  must  affirm  and  defend  your  practice.  I  am 
not  to  affirm  a  negative — that  sprinkling  or  pouring  is 
not  baptism.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  him  who 
believes  and  practices  it.  If  you  do  not  like  the  word 
"initiatory,"  I  am  willing  to  state  as  follows  : 

1.  Is  the  Divine  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament, 
called  baptiwi  in  the  common  version,  immersion?  I 
affirm — you  deny. 

2.  Is  the  Divine  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament, 
called  bajjfism  in  the  common  version,  sprinkling  or 
pouring?     You  affirm — I  deny. 

Here,  my  dear  sir,  is  straight  forward  work.  You  can 
neither  turn  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left.  You  must  go 
forward  or  backward.  I  will  defend  to  the  letter  what  I 
preached  in  your  city.  Will  you  defend  what  you  preach? 

Please  let  me  hear  from  you  at  your  earliest  conveni- 
ence. Respectfully  yours,        Benj.  Franklin. 


REV.  MERRILL'S  FOURTH  LETTER. 

Portsmouth,  Ohio,  March  3,  1858. 

Eld.  B.  Franklin — Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  the  22nd  ult. 
came  to  hand  last  night,  and  I  answer  it  at  my  "  earliest 
convenience,"  but  it  is  too  late  for  the  mail  this  morning. 
I  learn  that  you  have  commenced  the  publication  of  this 
correspondence.  Your  course,  in  that  particular,  struck 
my  mind  as  very  unusual;  but  if  it  corresponds  with  your 
views  of  propriety,  I  will  not  complain.  You  will,  of 
course,  publish  it  in  full,  and  then  no  injustice  will  be 
done. 

The  reason  my  answer  to  your  first  letter  f^iiled  to 
reach  you  before  you  left  was,  that  you  did  not  indicate 
where  in  the  city  you  could  be  found.  Before  I  ascer- 
tained that,  the  boat  was  ready  to  start.  When  you  re- 
marked, BO  significantly,  that  "  to  this  the  gentleman 


12  CORRESPONDENCE. 

made  no  reply  before  my  departure,"  you  might  have 
added,  that  the  reply  was  then  in  your  possession,  and 
that  you  had  answered  it. 

I  had  three  reasons  for  not  acceding  to  your  first  prop- 
osition :  1st,  My  health  would  not  justify  the  labor  at 
that  time;  2nd,  I  had  another  engagement  that  night; 
3rd,  I  never  could  consent  to  debate  without  a  proposi- 
tion distinctly  stated.  This  last  consideration  was  equal- 
ly forcible,  in  connection  with  the  first  proposition  in 
your  second  letter.  Such  a  course  would  inevitably  lead 
to  wrangling. 

The  chief  proposition  in  your  second  letter  was  very 
peculiar.  You  stated  five  questions  for  me  to  affirm, 
only  two  of  which  I  believed,  and  one  of  them  not  relat- 
ing to  the  subject  before  us!  Was  there  not  something 
"extremely  cautious"  in  this?  Truly  I  would  be  "as- 
sailable at  more  points"  than  you,  provided  I  let  you 
make  the  "points!" 

Your  allusion  to  the  "  opposition"  made  to  your  ef- 
forts here,  is  the  first  I  have  heard  of  it;  and  I  presume 
no  one  ever  imagined  that  any  "opposition"  to  your  ef- 
forts was  made  or  thought  of.  However,  some  of  your 
allusions  to  the  effect  of  your  efforts  in  setting  the  other 
denominations  to  work,  reminded  some  of  us  of  the  fa- 
ble of  the  fly  on  the  stage-coach. 

In  Degard  to  the  outside  matters  you  are  trying  to 
press  into  discussion,  permit  me  to  say,  once  for  all,  that 
you  entirely  misapprehend  our  position.  Why  you  do 
so,  1  do  not  pretend  to  understand.  We  never  "f^i/brt-e" 
the  "Book  of  Discipline  upon  the  followers  of  Christ," 
and  if  any  subscribe  to  it  voluntarily,  "what  is  that  to 
theeP^  We  never  practiced  "calling  mourners  forward 
to  pray,  and  be  prayed  for,  as  a  pai-t  of  the  process  in  con- 
version," and  how  you  could  imagine  any  such  thing,  is 
to  me  unaccountable.  You  are  "  widely  mistaken," 
when  you  assert  that  you  find  plenty  of  Methodist  preach- 
ers who  practice  this.  Methodist  preachers  never  "hind 
their  Discipline  upon  the  children  of  God,"  and  never 
call  "  mourners  forward  to  pray,  and  be  prayed  for,  as  a 
part  of  the  process  in  conversion."  Surely  you  must 
have  designed  all  this  for  effect  elsewhere! 

You  appear  anxious  to  assail  the  Ninth  Article  of  Re- 


CORRESPONDENCE.  1^ 

ligion,  as  found  in  the  Methodist  Discipline— or  at  least 
a  part  of  it — and  rather  than  have  no  debate,  I  may  ac- 
commodate you  with  the  opportunity;  but,  really,  I  do 
not  see  why  you  are  so  intent  upon  diverting  attention 
from  the  first  issue  raised  by  yourself.  You  say  I  am 
"widely  mistaken"  about  the  second  and  third  proposi- 
tions, in  your  second  letter,  being  the  same,  only  chang- 
ing the  order.  But  do  they  not  relate  to  the  same  gen- 
eral topic?  Do  they  not  both  involve  the  same  issue— 
the  mode  of  baptism?  How,  then,  am  I  "widely  mis- 
taken?" 

But,  sir,  let  us  come  to  the  point.  The  subject  is  Bap- 
tism, and  there  are  three  points  of  issue — the  mode,  the 
subject  and  the  design.  In  regard  to  the  first,  I  said  be- 
fore that  you  are  on  the  affirmative;  and,  notwithstand- 
ing your  attempt  to  show  to  the  contrary,  I  still  say  it. 
How  stands  the  case?  You  hold  that  the  mode  is  es- 
sential to  the  ordinance — that  it  is  definitely  taught  in 
the  Scriptures — that  it  is  immersion,  and  immersion  only. 
I  hold  that  the  mode  is  not  essential,  and  that  it  is  not 
definitely  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  Then,  "  as  a  matter 
of  course,  you  must  affirm  and  defend  your  own  posi- 
tion." I  am  not  to  affirm  a  negative — "that  the  mode 
is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  baptism,  and  that  it  is 
woMefinedin  the  Scriptures."  "The  burden  of  proof  rests 
upon  him"  who  holds  that  the  manner  of  applying  the 
water  is  definitely  taught,  and  that  it  is  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  ordinance. 

In  regard  to  the  second  point,  I  acknowledge  that  the 
affirmative  is  mine,  and  I  take  it  cheerfully.  I  am  will- 
ing to  hold  the  laboring  oar  when  it  belongs  to  me.  I 
did  feel  a  little  modest  about  stating  questions  for  you 
to  affirm,  but  since  you  have  been  so  liberal  in  assigning 
me  affirmatives  which  I  do  not  hold,  I  will  try  to  over- 
come that  feeling.     Consider  the  following  : 

1.  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism? 
Affirm  that,  and  I  will  deny  it. 

2.  Do  the  Scriptures  authorize  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism?     I  affirm,  and  you  deny. 

3.  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  that  baptism  is  a  condition 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins?    You  affirm — I  deny. 


14  CORRESPONDENCE. 

These  inrolve  the  whole  subject,  and  there  is  no'  pro- 
priety in  multiplying  questions.  Notwithstanding  your 
"  as  a  matter  of  course,"  you  will  see  the  necessity  of 
*'  affirming  and  defending  "  your  practice  of  immersion. 
Will  you  doit?  Then  why  manifest  such  "extreme 
caution?"  Here  is  straight-forward  work.  You  can 
neither  turn  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left.  You  must  go 
^'■forward  ov  backioard.'^  Make  your  election — advance 
or  retreat — and  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

S.  M.  Merrill. 

reply: 

WooDviLLE,  Ohio,  March  5,  1858. 

Rev.  Merrill — Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  the  3rd  inst. 
came  to  hand  on  last  night,  but  I  did  not  have  time  to 
reply  before  my  departure  for  this  place.  I  do  not  con- 
ceive that  there  is  any  impropriety  in  my  publishing  our 
correspondence,  as  I  shall  certainly  publish  it  entire. 
We  are  public  men,  and  the  people  have  a  right  to  see 
our  course,  and  the  positions  we  occupy. 

You  have  no  reason  to  complain  of  my  stating  that 
you  did  not  reply  to  my  letter  before  my  leaving  your 
city,  for  you  knew  how  to  reach  me  before  my  depar- 
ture, as  you  knew  several  of  my  friends,  who  would 
have  conveyed  the  letter  to  me;  not  only  so,  but  I  stated 
also,  tliat  I  should  depart  upon  the  Bostona,  then  lying 
at  the  landing;  where  you  knew  you  could  have  sent  the 
letter  to  me.  I  only  made  the  statement  to  show  that 
you  did  not  wish  to  detain  me  at  that  time  to  "  inform 
one."  In  this  I  was  not  mistaken,  as  your  three  numeri- 
cal reasons  will  show. 

You  say,  that  1  "  stated  five  questions  for  you  to  af- 
firm, only  two  of  which  you  believed,  and  one  of  them 
not  relating  to  the  subject  before  us,"  This  places 
you  in  a  singular  predicament,  for  a  Methodist  preacher, 
truly!  This  first  proposition  in  the  list  for  you  to  affirm, 
is  infant  baptism.  This  affirmative  you  believe,  for  in 
the  letter  before  me,  you  propose  to  debate  it.  The 
affirmative,  upon  justification  by  faith  only,  you  believe; 
for  you  propose,  in  the  letter  before  me,  to  debate  even 
that,  rather  than  have  no  debate.  This  is  the  sum  of 
your  belief,  so  far  as  contained  in  the  propositions  pre- 


CORRESPONDENCE.  15 

pared  for  you  to  aflSrm.  The  other  three  you  do  not  he- 
Veve.  The  first  one  is,  "  that  sprinkling  is  baptism." 
This  you  do  not  believe.  "  As  a  matter  of  course," 
you  will  not  practice  it  hereafter.  The  second  one  in 
the  list  that  you  do  not  believe,  is  that  wherein  I  pro- 
pose for  you  to  affirm  and  defend  "  the  use  you  make  of 
the  Discipline."  This  you  do  not  believe  in !  Will  you, 
then,  cease  "  the  use  you  make  of  this  book?"  You 
certainly  ought.  The  third  point  arranged  for  you  to 
affirm,  is  "  the  practice  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  calling  mourners  forward  to  pray,  and  be 
prayed  for,  as  a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion."  This 
practice  you  do  not  believe  in!  This  will  certainly  as- 
tonish some  of  the  members  of  your  church,  and  many  of 
your  fellow-citizens,  not  a  little. 

There  is  one  thing  more  in  this  matter  that  I  do  not 
understand.  You  propose  for  me  to  affirm,  that  "  im- 
mersion only  is  baptism,"  and  you  will  deny.  You 
practice  sprinkling,  but  now  have  admitted  that  you  do 
not  believe  the  proposition  I  proposed  for  you  to  affirm 
on  that  subject.  This  strikes  your  practice  out  of  the 
list,  even  if  immersion  only  is  not  baptism. 

I  am  surprised  to  hear  you  say,  *' We  never  *  enforce ' 
the  Book  of  Discipline  upon  the  followers  of  Christ." 
This  will  seem  strange  in  the  ears  of  many  identified 
with  your  church,  as  well  as  thousands  outside.  But  to 
palliate  this,  you  say,  "  if  any  subscribe  to  it  voluntarily, 
'what  is  that  to. thee?'"  When  did  the  members  of 
your  church  "  subscribe  to  the  Discipline  voluntarily?^^ 
Not  one  out  of  ten  of  them  ever  read  it,  or  knew  what 
was  in  it,  till  after  they  were  in  the  church,  and  one  half 
of  them,  to  this  day,  never  read  it,  and  know  not  what 
is  in  it.  What  of  all  the  infants,  baptized  {rantized) 
in  the  Methodist  church?  When  did  they  subscribe  to 
the  Discipline?  infant  baptism?  sprinkling /or  baptism? 
There  is  no  voluntarily  subscribing  here. 

You  "  never  call  mourners  forward  to  pray,  and  be 
prayed  for,  as  a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion!"  Well, 
you  "call  them  forward  to  pray,  and  be  prayed  for." 
This  is  known  and  read  of  all  men.  If  it  is  not  "  a  part 
of  the  process  in  converting  them,"  what  is  it?  It  is  "  a 
part  of  the  process  "  in  your  procedure,  and  your  proce- 


16  CORRESPONDENCE. 

dure  in  tryinj^  to  convert  sinners.  It  is  not  only  a  part, 
but  a  prominent  part  of  the  process,  in  your  procedure^ 
in  trying  to  proselyte  or  convert  sinners.  It  is  emphat- 
ically a  proselyting  institvition.  'I'iie  Apostles  and  lirst 
Christians  had  no  such  j)ractice.  But  as  you  do  not  be- 
lieve in  it,  I  i)ress  not  the  matter  upon  you. 

I  shall  not  dispute  with  you  about  the  propositions, 
Avherein  I  propose  to  allirm  immersion,  and  for  you  to 
affirm  sprinkling,  being  the  same,  as  all  before  whom  it 
shall  come,  can  see  that  they  arc  as  distinct  as  day  and 
night. 

You  say  that  "  I  hold  that  the  mode  is  essential  to  the 
ordinance."  No,  my  dear  sir,  I  have  said  nothing  about 
"  the  nu)de,"  nor  have  I  any  use  for  such  a  phrase.  We 
are  simply  inquiring  what  the  Apostles  did  when  they 
baptized.  I  say,  in  the  simplest  and  clearest  form  in 
which  I  can  express  it,  they  immersed.  This  far,  it  is 
my  affirmative,  and  the  proof  rests  upon  me.  You  may 
say,  you  do  not  doubt  this;  but  they,  in  performing  the 
same  rite,  sometimes  sprinkled  or  poured.  This  is  your 
affirmative.  The  proof  rests  upon  you.  But  as  you 
have  fairly  declined  affirming  ?/o«r  prac<<V^,  and  admit- 
ted, probably  without  intending  it,  that  you  do  not  be- 
lieve it,  I  shall,  to  do  my  utmost  to  accommodate  you, 
affirm  as  follows  : 

Immersion  is  the  only  baptism  taught  in  the  Christian 
Scriptures,  and  practiced  by  the  Apostles. 

Your  2nd  and  3rd,  I  accept  in  your  own  words.  I 
propose, 

1.  That  the  debate  commence  on  Monday,  April  5th, 
at  10  o'clock,  in  Portsmouth,  Ohio. 

2.  That  we  spend  one  day  on  each  proposition. 

3.  That  the  opening  s])eeches,  on  each  proposition, 
be  one  hour,  and  tliat  the  succeeding  speeches  shall  not 
exceed  thirty  minutes  each. 

4.  That  each  session  shall  last  two  hours. 

5.  That  there  shall  be  a  morning,  an  afternoon  and  a 
night  session,  each  day. 

Please  let  me  hear  from  you  at  your  earliest  conve- 
nience. 
With  kindest  regards,  and  with  a  sincere  desire  that 


CORRESPONDENCE.  17 

the  people  may  know  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ — the 
whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 

I  am,  most  respectfully,  yours, 
Benj.  Frankun. 


REV.  MERRILL'S  FIFTH  LETTER. 

Portsmouth,  Ohio,  March  9,  1858. 
Eld.B.  Franklin — Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  the  5th  inst. 
is  before  me,  and  I  hasten  to  reply.     Several  little  mat- 
ters require  attention. 

1.  The  failure  of  that  letter  to  reach  you  before  you 
left  here.  I  should  not  have  recurred  to  it  again,  but 
for  the  attempt  that  has  been  made  to  make  capital  out 
of  so  small  an  affair.  The  boat  started  in  two  hours  af- 
ter your  letter  was  received.  I  hastened  to  reply — made 
inquiry  as  to  your  whereabouts — failed  to  learn — but  en- 
gaged a  young  man,  who  promised  to  deliver  the  letter, 
if  you  could  be  found.  He  was  on  the  bank  of  the  riv- 
er, with  the  letter  in  his  hand,  just  as  the  boat  pushed 
off.  I  did  not  "  complain,"  but  simply  said,  "you 
might  have  added,"  etc.;  but  the  date  of  your  reply  will 
show  all  this. 

2.  I  do  not  see  the  force  of  the  remark,  that  "the  peo- 
ple have  a  right  to  see"  the  private  correspondence  of  even 
"public  men;"  but,  having  made  no  complaint  of  your 
course  in  publishing  the  correspondence,  I  will  not  now 
complain.  It  would,  however,  have  looked  as  well  to 
have  waited  until  the  correspondence  was  finished,  and 
then  spread  it  before  the  public  all  at  once  by  mutual 
agreement. 

3.  You  exclaim, "  A  singular  predicament  for  a  Metho- 
dist preacher,  truly!"  Now,  let  us  look  at  this.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  it.  I  hope  it  was  a  blunder  which  you  will 
correct — ^but  you  place  me  in  that  "  singular  predica- 
ment," by  a  palpable  misrepresentation  of  the  case!  I 
trust  you  did  not  design  it — but  still,  such  is  the  fact, 
and  it  must  be  pointed  out.  I  said  of  the  five  questions 
proposed  in  yovr  second  letter  for  me  to  affirm,  there 
were  only  two  which  I  believed-  Yes,  I  referred  to  the 
second  letter  diatinctly  ;  but  you  refer  to  them  as  modi- 
fied and  materially  changed  in  your  third  letter,  as  "  all 
before  whom  it  shall  come,"  and  for  whom  you  appear 

2 


18  CORRESPONDENCE. 

to  write,  will  plainly  see.  In  your  enumeration,  you  sta- 
ted correctly  the  two  believed,  but  incorrectly  those 
not  believed.  In  statinj^  these,  you  say,  "  The  first  is, 
that  sprinkling  is  baptism."  Not  at  all,  sir;  the  first 
reads  as  follows  :  "  Is  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the 
New  Testament,  sprinkling  or  pouring  ?  "  The  or- 
dinance called  "initiatory,"  is  baptism.  It  is  not 
sprinkling,  nor  pouring,  uor  immersion,  as  such,  but 
Baptism.  Your  "as  a  matter  of  course,"  is  again  out 
of  place.  Again,  your  language  is,  "  The  second  one 
on  the  list,  that  you  do  not  believe,  is  tliat  wherein  I 
propose  for  you  to  affirm  and  defend  the  use  you  make 
of  the  Discipline."  Not  by  any  means!  This  is  the 
statement  as  modified  in  your  third  letter;  but  my  allu- 
sion was  distinctly  made  to  your  second  fetter.  How 
could  you  overlook  this?  The  question  runs  tlius:  "  Is 
the  Methodist  Discipline  a  better  rule  of  faith,  doctrine, 
discipline  and  law,  or  is  it  better  in  any  respect,  for  the 
people  of  God,  than  the  New  Testament?"  Now,  my 
dear  sir,  I  have  a  better  opinion  of  your  intelligence 
than  to  doubt  for  a  single  moment,  that  you  knew  as 
well  when  you  wrote  that  question,  as  you  now  know, 
that  no  Methodist  preacher  on  earth  ever  believed  any 
such  thing.  You  certainly  did  not  expect  me  to  affirm 
that  the  Methodist  Discipline  is  better  than  the  New 
Testament!  If  you  had  stated  the  matter  in  the  s^coi>r/ 
letter  as  in  the  thi'rd,  the  case  would  have  been  quite 
different.  The  third  question  which  I  did  not  believe, 
had  respect  to  *'  calling  mourners  forward,  as  a  part  of 
the  process  in  conversion."  Tliere  is  no  danger  that 
any  intelligent  person  will  be  "  astonished  "  at  my  po- 
sition on  that  point.  No  one  regards  the  "  calling  mour- 
ners forward,  as  a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion." 
You  may  call  it  a  *'  proselyting  institution,"  or  whatever 
is  most  congenial  to  your  taste;  but  I  cannot  pretend  to 
comprehend  what  you  mean  by  "  the  process  in  conver- 
sion." It  is,  however,  very  certain  that  those  who  know 
any  thing  about  that  "  process,"  do  not  regard  the  out- 
ward act  of  coming  forward  for  prayer,  as  any  part  of  it. 
Epithets  are  cheap,  and  they  are  generally  valued  at 
their  real  worth,  among  thinking  people.  The  particu- 
lar manner  in  which  "  the  first  Christians  "  conducted 
their  praying  exercises,  is  not  material;  but  that  they 


CORRESPONDENCE.  19 

prayed  for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  is  as  clear  as  the 
light  of  the  sun.  If  you  see  any  thing  wrong  in  it,  I  am 
sorry  for  you,  but  cannot  help  it. 

4.  As  to  the  statement  that  those  two  questions  re- 
late to  the  same  general  issue,  only  changing  the  order, 
I  am  willing  that  "  all  those  before  whom  it  shall  come," 
and  for  whose  edification  you  appear  so  deeply  concerned, 
shall  form  their  own  opinions  in  regard  to  it.  I  have  a 
good  deal  of  faith  in  the  public  intelligence.  I  know 
that  your  people  discard  the  use  of  the  word  "mode," 
in  connection  with  baptism;  but  I  know  also  that  the 
term  is  legitimate,  until  it  shall  be  settled  that  the  ordi- 
nance is  to  be  administered  without  a  mode.  I  see  noth- 
ing very  profound  in  this,  nor  in  your  allusion  to  "  ran- 
tized  "  infants,  nor  yet  in  your  remarks  on  "  binding  the 
Discipline  on  the  followers  of  Christ."  You  cannot 
know  that  "not  one  out  of  ten  "  of  our  members  read 
the  little  book  in  question — but  you  ought  to  know  that 
not  one  is  ever  admitted  to  membership  without  volun- 
tarily subscribing  to  the  Discipline.  And  you  think  I 
have  "  admitted  "  something,  "  probably  without  intend- 
ing it!"  No,  sir;  your  discovery  that  my  admission 
"  strikes  my  practice  out  of  the  list,"  grew  out  of  your 
blunder  in  trying  to  fix  up  a  "predicament "  for  me,  by 
quoting  from  the  wrong  letter,  as  already  shown. 

5.  I  pass  a  number  of  other  matters  that  might  be 
noticed,  and  come  right  to  the  business  before  us.  My 
letter  is  too  long — but  that  is  owing  to  your  inaccura- 
cies of  statement,  and  the  effort  made  to  press  in  out- 
side issues.     I  agree  to  the  propositions  as  now  stated. 

1 .  Immersion  is  the  only  baptism  taught  in  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures  and  practiced  by  the  Apostles.  You 
affirm. 

2.  The  Scriptures  authorize  the  practice  of  Infant 
Baptism.     I  affirm. 

3.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  Baptism  is  a  condition 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.     You  affirm. 

1.  The  time  is  the  5th  day  of  April,  at  10  o'clock  A.  M. 

2.  On  each  of  the  propositions  we  must  spend  two 
days,  except  it  be  the  last.  One  day  may  be  sufficie  it 
for  that.  I  agree  to  all  the  rest  of  your  suggestions, 
and  reciprocate  your  kindly  fellings,  hoping  th  it 
nothing  will  occur  to  mar  the  pleasure  of  the  interview. 


20  CORRESPONDENCE. 

If  YOU  prefer  spending  the  first  day  in  discussing  the  9th 
Article  of  Religion  in  the  Methodist  Discipline,  I  am 
willing  to  affirm  the  doctrine  contained  in  it.  This  will 
give  us  an  equal  number  of  affirmatives  and  negatives, 
and  fill  up  the  week.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  discuss  any 
doctrinal  point,  but  those  questions  of  prudential  usage 
will  not  interest  the  public.  Please  let  me  hear  from 
you  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

Respectfully  yours,  S.  M.  Merrill. 

P.  S.  If  you  select  your  moderator  here,  and  do  it 
soon,  I  may  select  one,  and  they  may  have  a  little  time 
to  engage  a  president.  I  may  publish  the  corsespond- 
ence  in  the  citv  papers,  before  the  meeting  takes  place. 

S.  M.  M. 
reply: 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  March  11,  1858. 

Rev.  Merrill — Dear  tSir:  Yours  of  the  9th  inst. 
came  to  hand  this  morning,  and  I  hasten  to  reply  before 
leaving  to  be  absent  some  ten  days.  If  I  had  not  refer- 
red to  my  third  letter  in  the  place  of  the  second,  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  propositions  which  you  believe 
and  those  which  you  do  not  believe,  you  would  bave  had 
nothing  to  say,  even  apparoitly  in  justification  of  your 
most  unenviable  position.  But  what  have  you  gained? 
Certainly  nothing;  for  the  propositions  in  both  letters 
are  substantially  the  same.  The  issues  made  are  the 
same,  though  they  do  not  stand  in  precisely  the  same  or- 
der. As  you  were  replying  to  my  third  letter,  by  an  in- 
advertance,  I  did  not  notice  that  you  were  speaking  of 
my  propositions  as  stated  in  my  second  letter.  But  this 
relieves  not  you  in  the  least,  as  we  shall  now  see  by 
looking  at  the  affirmatives  which  you  "  do  not  believe." 
The  first  one,  in  Avhich  you  are  to  affirm  infant  baptism, 
you  believe.  The  fourth  one,  in  which  you  affirm  "jus- 
tification by  faith  only,"  you  believe.  The  other  three 
of  the  five  affirmatives  arranged  for  you,  I  am  assured 
you  do  not  believe.  What  are  they?  One  of  them,  num- 
ber three,  in  my  second  letter,  reads  as  follows:  "  Is  the 
iniatory  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament  sprinkling  or 
pouring?"  This  was  arranged  for  you  to  affirm;  but 
you  now  inform  us,  that  you  do  not  believe  "  the  initia- 
tory ordinance  of  the  New  Testament  is  sprinkling  or 


CORRESPONDENCE.  21 

pouring."  In  this,  I  am  perfectly  agreed  with  you.  I 
do  not  believe  this  divine  ordinance  is  sprinkling  or 
pouring.  You  ^vill  not,  therefore,  blame  the  members 
of  your  church,  who  had  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon, 
in  the  place  of  this  ordinance,  and  were  not  satisfied. 

The  proposition,  number  five,  in  my  second  letter,  was 
arranged  for  you  to  affirm  that  "  the  Scriptures  author- 
ize the  practice  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
calling  mourners  forward  to  pray  and  be  prayed  for,  as 
a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion."  This  practice, 
you  now  imform  me,  you  do  not  believe  in.  In  this  I 
also  agree  with  you.  There  is  no  need  of  debate,  then, 
on  this  point. 

The  proposition,  number  seven,  in  my  second  letter, 
was  arranged  for  you  to  affirm,  that  "the  Methodist 
Discipline  is  a  better  rule  of  faith,  discipline  and  law," 
or  that  is  "  better  in  any  respect,  for  the  people  of  God, 
than  the  New  Testament."  You  do  not  believe  that 
*•  it  is  a  better  rule  of  faith,  discipline  and  law;"  or 
"  that  it  is  better  in  any  rcKpect,  for  the  people  of  God, 
than  the  New  Testament."  Here,  a.2;ain,  I  perfectly 
agi'ee  with  you.  I  do  not  believe  it  "  is  better  in  any 
respect,''^  than  the  New  Testament.  Why  not,  then,  my 
dear  sir,  take  the  New  Testament  and  let  the  Disci- 
pline go? 

I  also  proposed,  in  my  third  letter,  that  you  affirm, 
that  "the  divine  oi-dinance  in  the  New  Testament,  call- 
ed baptism  in  the  common  version,  is  sprinkling  or 
pouring."  Why  did  you  not  affirm  it?  Was  it  because 
I  had  made  out  an  affirmative  that  you  did  not  believe? 
To  accommodate  you,  I  had  removed  the  word  "  initia- 
tory." But  I  could  not  induce  you  to  affirm  and  defend 
your  own  practice.  Your  friends  will  have  less  confi- 
dence in  your  position  on  this  point  than  ever,  when  they 
see  how  you  have  evaded  and  utterly  refused  to  affirm 
and  defend  your  practice.  They  will  think  that  you 
have  no  confidence  in  it. 

I  have  stated  what  I  know  to  be  true  in  saying  that 
nine  out  of  ten,  of  all  that  are  taken  into  your  church, 
know  not  what  is  in  the  Discipline  when  they  are  re- 
ceived into  church.  Not  one  out  of  ten  of  them  ever 
read  it,  before  they  were  received  into  the  church,  as 


22  CORRESPONDENCE. 

you  cannot  help  knowing.  They  know  not  what  is  in  it, 
and  if  they  "voluntarily  subscribe  to  it,"  they  doit 
without  knowing  Avhat  they  are  subscribing  to,  and  the 
case  is  only  so  much  the  worse  with  the  preachers  who 
induce  them  to  subscribe  to  it,  without  knowing  what 
is  in  it. 

I  thankfully  accept  your  proposal  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion embraced  in  the  Ninth  Article  of  your  Discipline  on 
the  first  day.  I  agree  to  the  proposal,  as  to  time,  etc., 
as  set  forth  in  the  close  of  your  letter,  except  the  post- 
script. I  shall  have  to  get  a  moderator  from  abroad. 
This  we  can  easily  arrange.  The  Lord  permitting,  I 
will  be  with  you  at  the  time. 

I  am  perfectly  willing  you  should  have  the  correspond- 
ence published  in  yonr  city  papers.  That  would  let 
your  citizens  know  the  state  of  the  case. 

I  am  truly  thankful  for  the  kindness  and  good  temper 
you  have  shown.     I  hope  we  shall  have  a  candid,  in- 
teresting and  profitable  interview.     May  the  Lord  be 
with  us,  and  may  the  way  of  the  Lord  be  clear  to  us. 
I  am,  respectfully,  yours, 

Benjamin  Franklin. 


REV.  MERRILL'S  SIXTH  LETTER. 

Portsmouth,  Ohio,  March  15,  1858. 

Eld.  Franklin — Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  11th  inst.  is 
received.  You  speak  of  my  "unenviable  position," 
but  really  I  cannot  make  out  what  you  mean  by  it.  I 
have  frankly  avowed  my  belief  or  disbelief  in  regard  to 
the  strange  and  unheard  of  questions  you  have  seen  fit 
to  propose,  but  have  neither  "  evaded  "  nor  denied  any 
point  in  my  faith  or  practice.  I  am  therefore  compelled 
to  look  upon  your  effort  to  make  the  impression  that  I 
have  "  evaded  "  any  point  as  uncalled  for  and  in  very 
bad  taste. 

Your  assertion  that  the  questions  as  stated  in  your 
second  and  third  letters  are  "  substantially  the  same," 
surprises  me  no  little;  but  no  dispute  on  this  point  is 
now  necessary,  as  all  before  whom  they  will  come  and 
see  that  they  differ  very  materially.  Nor  did  I  say  I 
did  not  believe  in  the  practice  of  the  iMethodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  calling  mourners  forward  to  pray  and  be 


CORRESPONDENCE.  23 

prayed  for,  but  only  that  we  do  not  regard  that  practice 
"  as  a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion." 

You  wish  to  know  why  I  do  not  "  take  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  let  the  Discipline  go;  my  answer  is,  I  pre- 
fer taking  both.  You  seem  incapable  of  finding  any 
use  for  a  book,  unless  it  is  better  than  the  JVew  Testa- 
ment. 

You  represent  me  as  "  utterly  refusing  to  affirm  and 
defend  my  practice."  This  was  because  you  tried  and 
utterly  failed  to  show  that  the  burden  of  proof  rested 
upon  me,  on  the  question  as  to  the  manner  of  applying 
the  water  in  baptism.  My  reply  is,  that  it  would  look 
better  in  you  to  wait  until  the  debate  is  over  before  you 
raise  a  cry  of  that  sort.  The  public  can  distinguish  be- 
tween objecting  to  the  form  of  a  question  for  debate, 
and  a  refusal  to  defend  my  practice.  1  did  not  affirm 
the  question  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  as  modified  in  your 
third  letter,  because  the  affirmative  on  that  subject  be- 
longed to  you,  and  there  was  no  need  of  two  questions 
on  the  same  point.  I  might  ask  in  turn,  why  you  "utter- 
ly refused  to  affirm  "that  "immersion  is  essential  to 
the  validity  of  Christian  baptism."  But  I  regard  such 
matters,  at  this  stage  of  the  affair,  as  altogether  out  of 
place. 

How  you  can  pretend  to  knoijo  what  you  assert  in  re- 
gard to  nine  out  often  of  all  that  are  admitted  to  mem- 
bership in  our  church  is  a  mystery.  It  is  a  matter  that 
does  not  belong  to  the  correspondence  between  us,  but 
you  see  fit  to  make  large  pretensions  of  knowledge,  and 
if  you  imagine  you  can  make  any  one  believe  that  you 
know  what  everybody  knows  you  have  no  possible 
means  of  knowing,  1  think  it  is  probably  the  better 
plan  to  let  you  enjoy  the  delusion. 

But  for  this  last  effiart  to  press  me  into  a  false  posi- 
tion, I  should  not  have  troubled  you  with  this.  The  pre- 
liminaries are  now  sufficiently  agreed  upon,  and  I  earn- 
estly trust  that  the  four  propositions  will  be  discussed  in 
the  true  spirit  of  our  holy  Christianity. 

Respectfully  yours, 

S.  M.  Merrill. 

reply: 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  March  23,  1858. 
Rev.  Merrill — Bear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  15th  inst. 


M  CORRESPONDENCE. 

came  to  my  office  in  due  time,  but,  owing  to  my  absence, 
could  not  receive  attention  till  now.  I  probably  ought 
not  to  have  said  anytliing  about  your  "unenviable  posi- 
tion," as  it  was  certainly  sulliciently  unpleasant,  with- 
out anything  being  said.  "Forgive  me  this  wrong." 
Since,  however,  I  have  alluded  to  your  unpleasant  pre- 
dicament, I  shall  maintain  that  you  have  evaded  in  the 
following  particulars : 

1.  When  I  proposed  for  you  to  affirm  and  defend  your 
practice — that  sprinkling  is  baptism — you  not  only  de- 
clined the  proposition  in  every  form  as  presented  by  me, 
and  stated  that  yoxi,  did  not  believe  it,  in  one  form,  but 
did  not  propose  to  affirm  it  in  any  form. 

2.  I  proposed  a  proposition,  in  dilFerent  forms,  for 
you  to  affirm,  embracing  your  practice  in  praving  for 
mourners,  in  your  efforts  to  convert  them,  which  you 
also  declined,  declaring  that  yoti  did  not  believe  it,  as 
stated  in  one  form,  and,  at  the  same  time,  you  did  not 
propose  to  affirm  your  practice  in  any  fortn.  On  this 
point  your  evasions  were:  1st,  A  false  issue,  in  talking 
of  "  divine  authority  for  the  mourner's  bench,"  or  of  its 
being  "a  divine  institution,"  when  I  had  not  mentioned 
the  mourner's  bench,  but  had  spoken  simply  of  "the 
practice  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;"  2nd,  You 
said  you  did  not  believe  the  proposition  in  one  form,  as 
I  proposed  it;  3rd,  You  now  say,  "  I  did  not  say,  I  did 
not  believe  in  the  practice  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  calling  mourners  forward  to  pray  and  be 
prayed  for,  but  only  that  we  do  not  regard  that  practice 
as  'a  part  of  the  process  in  conversion.'  " 

3  I  tried  to  induce  you  to  affirm  the  use  you  make  of 
your  Discipline,  by  presenting  a  proposition  in  different 
forms,  but  the  proposition,  as  presented  in  one  form,  you 
said  you  did  not  believe,  declined  to  affirm  it  in  any 
form,  as  proposed  by  me,  and  proposed  no  other  form 
yourself. 

4.  Your  effort  to  induce  me  to  affirm  the  exclusive 
proposition,  that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  is  an  inva- 
sion, to  induce  me  to  lead  the  way,  affirming  not  only 
that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism,  but  that  nothing  else  ex- 
cept immersion  is  baptism.  You  do  not  expect  to  have 
any  debate  on  immersion;  but  you  expect  to  admit  that 


CORRESPONDENCE.  25 

immersion  is  baptism,  and  then  you  intend  to  call  on  mo 
to  prove  that  sprinkling — vour  practice — and  everything 
else  is  not  baptism.  1  was  compelled  to  take  this  prop- 
osition, not  to  prove  immersion,  as  I  did  not  expect  .>ou 
to  question  it,  but  to  get  at  your  practice — to  prove  that 
sprinkling  is  not  baptism,  or  have  no  debate.  I  was 
thus  compelled  to  affirm  a  negative,  by  no  other  cause, 
only  that  you  could  not  be  induced  to  affirm  what  you 
practice — sprinkling  for  baptism. 

I  have  no  fears  that  men  of  discrimination  will  differ 
with  my  judgment,  when  I  say  that  the  propositions  de- 
clined by  you  are  "  substantially  the  same  "  in  my  sec- 
ond and  third  letters.  But  if  they  should,  it  relieves 
not  you,  for  you  declined  them,  as  stated  in  both  letters. 
Why  did  you  not  affirm  them  as  stated  in  the  third  let- 
ter? Why  did  you  not  propose  substitues?  Why  did 
jou  never  propose  to  affirm  vour  practice  on  these  three 
points  in  any  form?  Was  it  because  you  were  not  ^'green 
enough?" 

I  have  been  familiar  with  Methodists  from  my  ear- 
liest recollection,  and  know,  from  personal  observation^ 
that  I  state  the  truth,  when  1  say,  that  not  one  out  of 
ten  knew  what  is  in  the  Discipline  when  they  joined  the 
church.  I  can  demonstrate  what  I  say,  if  you  will  per- 
mit me  to  catechise  any  class  you  can  produce. 

I  should  like  to  know  what  the  people  of  Portsmouth 
think  of  your  statement,  that  no  one  but  m^  self  thought 
of  there  being  any  opposition  to  my  efforts  in  your  place! 
Please  not  fail  to  have  our  correspondence  published  in 
your  city  papers. 

The  Lord  permitting  I  will  be  on  hand  at  the  ap- 
pointed time,  April  5th.  Respectfully  yours, 

Benj.  Franklin. 


THE  DEB 


MR,  MERRIll'S  FIRST  SPEECH. 

First  Proposition  : — "We  arc  Accounted  Righteous 
before  God,  only  for  tlie  Merit  of  our  Lord  and  Savior 
Jesus  Christ  l)y  Faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  de- 
servings;  wherefore,  that  we  are  Justified  by  Faith  Only, 
is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine  and  very  full  of  comfort." 
Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

The  question  brouglit  before  us  at  this 
hour,  for  calm,  sober  investigation,  is  ono 
of  the  most  important  that  can  occupy 
the  human  mind.  How  can  man  be  jus- 
tified before  God?  By  what  means,  or  on 
what  terms,  can  the  guilty,  sinful  crea- 
ture approach  into  the  presence  of  the 
holy  Creator,  and  find  acceptance?  The 
proposition  which  I  affirm,  sets  this  matter 
before  us,  as  1  conceive,  in  a  clear  and  com- 
prehensive light.  It  exhibits,  at  a  glance, 
the  scriptural  principle  of  justification,  se- 
curing to  the  Redeemer  the  glory  of  his 
own  work,  and  leaving  the  responsibility 
of  failure  where  it  rightfully  belongs — 
upon  the  creature  who  refuses  compliance 
with  the  expressed  condition.  In  order  to 
bring  the  subject  as  distinctly  as  possible 
before  us,  I  again  read  the  proposition.  It  is 


28  DEBATE   ON 

the  Nintli  Article  of  Ecligion,  as  found  in  the 
Methodist  Discijiliiie:  "AVe  arc  accounted 
righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of 
our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ  by  ftiith, 
and  not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings  ; 
wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  fiiith 
only,  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine,  and 
very  full  of  comfort."  According  to  the 
terms  of  our  agreement,  I  am  to  affirm  the 
doctrine  contained  in  this  Article.  That 
doctrine,  when  properly  understood,  is  so 
plainly  scriptural,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
little  astonishment,  that  one  can  be  found 
willing  to  make  a  public  denial  of  it.  I 
can  only  account  for  the  position  my  friend, 
the  respondent,  has  taken,  in  regard  to  this 
j)roposition,  on  the  supposition,  that  his 
prejudice  against  all  creeds  has  induced 
him  to  presume  that  this,  being  part  of  a 
creed,  must  necessarily  be  erroneous  ;  and 
that  without  carefully  examining  the  doc- 
trine, he  has  hastily  pronounced  against 
the  creed,  and  therefore  against  each  Ar- 
ticle of  it.  However  this  may  be,  he  will 
have  ample  opportunity  to  define  his  own 
position,  and  to  assign  reasons  for  assailing 
this  Article. 

Without  detaining  with  preliminary  re- 
marks, I  shall  proceed  to  ascertain  the  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  proposition  before  us, 
that  you  may  see  precisely  what  I  affirm, 
and  what  my  friend  denies.  But  few  of 
the  terms  in  the  proposition  need  to  be  de- 
fined.    The  w^ord  "justified"  is  to  be  un- 


JUSTIFICATION.  2S 

derstood  in  the  sense  of  being  "  accounted 
righteous."  It  is  not  only  used  in  this 
sense  here,  but  also  in  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  the  act  of  Grod  by  which  he  pardons  our 
sins,  accepts  our  persons  and  accounts  us 
righteous,  or  treats  us  as  righteous  persons, 
only  for  the  sake  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
But  what  is  meant  by  that  little  word 
"only?"  We  must  notice  this  particular- 
ly, for  it  is  the  occurrence  of  this  little 
word  in  the  last  part  of  the  Article,  that 
has  aroused  the  oj^position  of  my  friend. 
The  word  "  only"  occurs  twice  in  the  Ar- 
ticle, and  thus  explains  itself:  "AYe  are  ac- 
counted righteous  before  God  onli/  for  the 
merit  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ 
by  faith  ;  wherefore,  that  we  are  justified 
by  fiiith  only,"  etc.  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
last  "  only  "  corresponds  with  the  first,  and 
that  the  word  is  used  in  both  places  to  ex- 
clude all  idea  of  human  merit  as  the  ground 
or  procuring  cause  of  pardon  or  justifica- 
tion. It  is  not  used  to  exclude  anything 
that  properly  belongs  to  the  great  work  of 
bringing  the  sinner  into  a  state  of  recon- 
ciliation with  Grod,  such  as  the  grace  of 
Grod,  the  blood  of  Christ,  etc. ;  nor  is  it  de- 
signed to  exclude  any  thing  that  properly 
belongs  to,  or  accompanies,  the  exercise 
of  genuine  faith,  as  the  preparation  of 
heart  which  is  antecedent,  or  the  fruits 
which  follow  it,  but  simply  to  exclude  the 
merit  of  human  actions,  as  the  ground  of 
our  accej)tance  with  God.     "  Faith   only  " 


30  DEBATE   ON 

stands  in  opposition  to  the  merit  of  "  our 
own  works  or  deservings."  It  is  not  the 
abstract  definition  of  tlie  w^ord,  but  the  use 
and  application  here  made  of  it,  that  I  am 
seeking  after.  It  is  an  exclusive  term,  but 
we  are  not  to  make  it  exclude  anything  and 
everything  we  may  see  fit,  without  regard 
to  the  connection  in  w^hich  it  stands.  Hence 
my  respondent  will  not  be  at  liberty  to  take 
this  w^ord  out  of  its  connection  to  put  an 
arbitrary  construction  upon  it,  and  then  in- 
fer that  the  Article  teaches  thus  and  so, 
and  make  war  upon  his  forced  inference, 
as  upon  the  doctrine  which  I  affirm.  He 
must  take  the  word  in  its  connection — un- 
derstand it  as  expounded  by  the  church 
which  adopts  it— and  then  he  w^ill  assail 
the  doctrine  contained  in  the  proposition, 
and  not  merely  a  man  of  straw.  I  remark, 
farther,  that  we  must  distinguish  between 
"faith  only"  and  "faith  alone."  Faith  is 
not  alone.  It  involves  the  elements  of  re- 
pentance, and  is  accompanied  by  good 
w^orks  as  fruits;  but  while  it  is  not  in  the 
nature  of  things  alone,  it  is  only  the  faith 
that  justifies.  Faith  implies  repentance 
and  obedience,  but  neither  the  repentance 
nor  the  obedience  can  be  accounted  for 
righteousness,  but  the  faith  only.  I  may 
also  premise  that  the  Scriptures  speak  of 
four  distinct  justifications.  These  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  each  other,  for 
wo  cannot  confound  them  without  produc- 
ing confusion.     The  first  has   been   called 


JUSTIFICATION.  SI 

infiintile  justification.  It  has  respect  to 
the  spiritual  state  of  man  when  first 
brought  into  conscious  existence.  "  By 
the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  But 
we  have  no  controversy  respecting  this  jus- 
tification. The  second  is  that  about  which 
we  dispute.  It  is  the  justification  of  the 
sinner  in  the  sense  of  pardon.  This  is  the 
act  of  God  by  which  he  reverses  the  con- 
demnatory sentence  of  the  law,  and  dis- 
charges the  sinner  from  guilt  and  liability 
to  punishment.  It  is  called  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, pardon,  remission,  the  non-imputa- 
tion of  sin,  the  imputation  of  righteousness, 
but  it  is  the  same  act.  It  is  a  forensic  term, 
and  has  respect  to  the  claims  of  the  law 
of  Grod.  After  this  comes  the  third — the 
justification  of  the  righteous  by  obedience, 
in  the  sense  of  approval.  Of  this  St.  James 
speaks  in  his  Epistle,  and  illustrates  it  by 
the  justification  of  Abraham,  "  when  he  of- 
fered his  son  Isaac  upon  the  altar."  Abra- 
ham had  been  justified  by  faith  many 
years  before  this  event,  and  was  conse- 
quently a  righteous  man  when  he  received 
the  command  to  ofi'er  his  son  upon  the  al- 
tar ;  for  it  is  written  of  him,  that  "  he  be- 
lieved Grod,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness,"  before  Isaac  was  born.  It 
is  therefore  plain,  that  St.  James  speaks  of 
the  justification  of  believers,  who,  by  works, 
evince  their  faith,  and  prove  their  justifica- 
tion to  themselves  and  others,  and  thus  ob- 


32  DEBATE   ON 

tain  the  farther  favor  and  approbation  of 
Heaven.  Hence  the  justification  spoken  of 
by  St.  James  cannot  be  opposed  to  that  of 
which  my  proposition  speaks,  which  is  the 
justification  of  the  sinner,  in  the  sense  of 
pardon,  by  faitli  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
only  procurer  of  salvation.  The  fourth  jus- 
tification taught  in  the  Scriptures  has  re- 
spect to  the  transactions  of  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. Then  men  will  be  justified  or  con- 
demned, not  because  of,  but  according  to 
their  works.  The  reason  of  this  final  justi- 
fication of  the  righteous  will  not  be  found 
in  them,  but  in  the  Savior  ;  nevertheless, 
the  final  decision  will  be  according  to  the 
deeds  done  in  the  body,  or  ujDon  the  testi- 
mony of  works  as  the  fruits  of  faith  or  un- 
belief. But  as  this  justification  is  not  in 
dispute,  I  dwell  not  upon  it.  I  refer  to 
these  difi'erent  justifications  for  the  pur- 
pose of  avoiding  confusion,  and  that  we 
may  get  at  the  precise  point  in  dispute.  I 
fear  my  friend  has  them  all  confused  in  his 
mind,  but  I  hope  now  to  be  able  to  keep 
the  issue  so  clearly  before  you  as  that  you 
will  see  when  either  of  us  turns  aside  to 
raise  false  issues. 

The  difi'erent  causes  of  justification  must 
also  be  carefully  noted.  Confining  the  jus- 
tification to  the  sense  of  pardon,  the  causes 
are  three — the  originating,  the  procuring 
and  the  receiving.  The  first  is  the  grace 
of  Grod,  the  second  is  the  blood  of  Christ, 
and  the  third  is  faith.     The  third  cause  is 


JUSTIFICATION.  33 . 

that  about  wliich  we  dispute.  I  call  it  the 
receiving  cause,  for  the  sake  of  conveni- 
ence, and  to  guard  against  misapprehen- 
sion. It  is  sometimes  called  the  instru- 
mental cause,  and  sometimes  the  condi- 
tion. It  is  that  which  is  required  on  the 
part  of  the  person,  and  hence  is  a  condi- 
tion ;  and  it  is  that  by  Avhich  the  individ- 
ual lays  hold  uj^on  the  merit  of  Christ,  and 
receives  the  blessing,  and  on  this  account  it 
may  be  called  the  receiving  cause  of  justi- 
fication, without  danger  of  deceiving.  And 
as  the  only  originating  cause  is  the  grace 
of  G-od,  and  the  only  procuring  cause  is 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  the  only  re- 
ceiving cause,  the  only  condition,  is  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Article  which  forms  the 
proposition  before  us,  and  this  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Holy  ScrijDtures,  as  1  shall  now 
have  the  pleasure  of  proving  in  your  pres- 
ence. 

In  denying  this  proposition,  my  friend 
denies  that  we  are  accounted  righteous  be- 
fore God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and  virtually  affirms 
that  we  are  accounted  righteous  before 
God,  not  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  for  our  own  works  or  deserv- 
ings.  Ho  cannot  say  nay  to  the  proposi- 
tion, without  virtually  affirming  this.  He 
may  confine  his  opposition  princij^ally  to 
the  last  clause  of  the  Article,  but  that  be- 
ing only  a  corollary  or  deduction  from  tho 

3 


34  DEBATE   ON 

first  part,  must  be  interpreted  by  the  first 
part.  It  being  a  deduction  from  the  prem- 
ises laid  down,  it  cannot  legitimately  be 
held  to  contain  any  thins:  more  than  is  con- 
tained  in  the  premises.  The  opposition  of 
my  friend  must  therefore  be  to  the  premi- 
ses as  well  as  to  the  conclusion  ;  and  in  say- 
ing nay  to  the  premises  in  this  Article  of 
^Religion,  he  must  assert  what  is  here  de- 
nied. In  a  discussion  like  this,  he  cannot 
occupy  merely  a  negative  position.  He 
must  take  ground  that  can  be  understood. 
In  denying  that  we  are  accounted  right- 
eous only  for  the  merit  of  «)ur  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  he  must  show  for  whose  merit  we 
are  accounted  righteous,  and  for  what 
works  or  deservings.  We  are  not  here  to 
contend  about  words  and  phrases,  but  for 
truth  and  righteousness.  God  help  us  to 
be  honest,  and  to  approach  the  subject  in 
his  fear  I 

I.  My  first  argument  is  drawn  frorai  the 
Scripture  representations  of  human  deprav- 
ity. Why  are  we  not  accounted  righteous 
before  God,  for  our  works  or  deservings  ? 
Because  we  are  so  deeply  depraved,  that 
our  works  are  evil,  and  our  deservings 
death !  When  St.  Paul  undertook  to  prove, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Eomans,  that  there  was 
no  justification  for  Jew  or  Gentile  on  the 
ground  of  works,  he  first  proved  that  all 
■were  under  sin.  The  dark  picture  of  Gen- 
tile depravity  is  drawn  in  the  first  chapter, 
and  in  the  third  he  proves  that  the  Jews 


JUSTIFICATION.  35 

^rere  no  better.  ''  What  then  ?  are  we  bet- 
ter than  they  ?  No,  in  nowise ;  for  we 
have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, that  they  are  all  under  sin ;  as  it  is 
written :  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not 
one;  there  is  none  that  understandeth, 
there  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God. 
They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way,  they  are 
together  become  unprofitable;  there  is  none 
that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one.  Their  throat 
is  an  open  sepulchre  ;  with  their  tongues 
they  have  used  deceit ;  the  poison  of  asps 
is  under  their  lips  :  whose  mouth  is  full  of 
cursing  and  bitterness  ;  their  feet  are  swift 
to  shed  blood  ;  destruction  and  misery  are 
in  their  ways  ;  and  the  way  of  peace  have 
they  not  known;  there  is  no  fear  of  God 
before  their  eyes.  'Now  we  know  that 
what  things  soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith 
to  them  who  are  under  the  law,  that  every 
mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world 
may  become  guilty  before  God.  Therefore 
by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no 
flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight,  for  by  the  law 
is  the  knowledge  of  sin."  Eom.  iii.  9-20. 
But  whence  cometh  this  universal  corrup- 
tion ?  This,  the  Apostle  answers  in  the 
fifth  chapter,  in  exhibiting  the  federal  char- 
acter of  Adam,  and  pointing  to  his  disobe- 
dience as  the  source  of  sin  and  death  to  all 
men.  I  present  the  following  expressions  : 
*'  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world ;"  "  for,  if  through  the 
offence  of  one  many  be  dead;"  "for  if  by 


36  DEBATE  ON 

one  man's  offence  death,  reigned  by  one ;" 
"therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judg- 
ment came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation  ;" 
"for  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
•were  made  sinners,"  etc.  Sin  entered  the 
world  by  one,  death  reigned  by  one,  con- 
demnation came  by  one,  and  by  the  dis- 
obedience of  one  many  were  made  sinners. 
Thus,  St.  Paul  denies  justification  by  works, 
on  account  of  universal  depravity;  and  he 
accounts  for  universal  depravity  by  point- 
ing to  the  influence  or  effect  of  the  first  act 
of  disobedience  on  the  part  of  Adam  ;  and  if 
any  are  dissatisfied  with  this  method  of 
accounting  fo^'  the  "  existing  evil,"  they 
may  dispute  with  Paul,  and  deny  the  fact, 
or  account  for  it,  as  best  they  can.  I  find 
the  fact  of  universal  depravity  clearly  as- 
serted in  the  Scriptures,  and  to  my  mind 
it  is  sufficiently  acounted  for  in  the  relation 
we  all  sustain  to  Adam,  the  first  sinner. 
The  fountain  was  corrupted  and  the  stream 
remains  corrupt.  Adam  fell  and  human 
nature  remains  fallen.  But  if  so,  the  ground 
of  justification  can  not  be  in  man.  What- 
ever works  are  properly  ours,  must  be 
like  our  fallen  natures — evil.  Then,  until 
this  Scripture  doctrine  be  overthrown,  and 
it  be  shown  that  mankind  are  not  morally 
sick,  so  as  to  need  a  physician,  I  will  main- 
tain, as  this  proposition  declares,  that  the 
ground  of  justification  is  not  in  our  works 
or  deservings,  but  in  Jesus  Christ. 

II.  My  second  argument  is  founded  on 


JUSTIFICATION.  37 

those  Scriptures  whicli  ascribe  the  work  of 
salvation  to  the  grace  of  God.  I  use  the 
word  "salvation"  here,  not  as  being  syn- 
onymous with  justification,  but  as  includ- 
ing it.  The  whole  process  of  salvation, 
from  its  incipient  stage  to  its  consumma- 
tion in  glory,  being  ascribed  to  the  grace 
of  God,  justification,  as  an  important  part 
of  the  process,  must  be  regarded  as  of 
grace.  Hence  the  Apostle  says,  "  Being 
justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,"  etc. 
Eom.  iii.  24.  "  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved, 
through  faith  ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves, 
it  is  the  gift  of  God ;  not  of  works,  lest  any 
man  should  boast."  Eph.  ii.  8-9.  But  may 
it  not  be  that  the  grace  of  God,  the  origin- 
ating cause  of  salvation,  has  so  provided 
for  the  justification  of  sinners,  as  to  sus- 
pend the  ofi'er  upon  the  condition  of  works  ? 
This  is  the  point  in  dispute,  and  the  Apos- 
tle settles  it  by  showing  that  it  can  not  be 
of  grace  and  works  both.  If  it  is  of  grace 
at  all,  all  idea  of  human  merit  must  be  ex- 
cluded. "  And  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no 
more  of  works  ;  otherwise  grace  is  no  more 
grace.  Bat  if  it  be  of  works,  then  is  it  no 
more  grace  ;  otherwise  work  is  no  more 
work."  Eom.  xi.  6.  The  idea  here  advanc- 
ed is  important.  It  turns  not  on  the  kind 
of  works,  whether  moral  or  ceremonial, 
but  upon  the  nature  of  grace  and  works. 
Grace,  in  the  nature  of  things,  can  not  be 
merited  or  purchased  by  works  ;   for  grace 


38  DEBATE   ON 

is  unmerited  favor.  Hence,  if  salvation  is 
by  grace,  it  cannot  be  by  works,  whether 
legal,  moral,  ceremonial,  or  evangelical. 
This  idea  is  presented  in  Rom.  iv.  4  :  "  Now 
to  him  that  w^orketh,  is  the  reward  not 
reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt."  If  works, 
of  any  kind,  were  the  condition  of  justifica- 
tion, then  the  blessing  would  be  claimed  as 
a  reward  earned  and  paid  for,  by  him  who 
performed  the  condition,  and  being  reck- 
oned of  debt  and  not  of  mere  favor,  the  in- 
dividual would  have  whereof  to  glory. 
But  this  can  never  be.  Our  salvation  ia 
all  of  grace,  and  boasting  is  excluded. 
"  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be 
by  grace."  Rom.  iv.  16.  As  to  the  origin 
of  justification,  grace  and  works  are  con- 
trasted— grace  excluding  works;  and  as  to 
the  condition  of  justification,  faith  and 
works  are  contrasted  —  faith  excluding 
works  ;  thus  works  are  set  aside  from  hav- 
ing any  part  in  originating,  procuring,  or 
purchasing  the  gospel  blessing  of  pardon. 
To  this  argument,  I  invite  the  particular 
attention  of  my  friend.  I  hope  he  will 
take  hold  of  it,  analyze  it,  point  out  what- 
ever of  soj^histry  he  may  bo  able  to  find  in  it, 
and,  if  possible,  refute  it,  by  clear,  scriptu- 
ral argument,  and  not  by  playing  upon  the 
words  "grace"  and  "works." 

III.  The  third  argument  which  I  offer  in 
support  of  my  proposition,  is  drawn  from 
those  Scriptures  which  ascribe  salvation  to 
the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  recognizing  that 


JUSTIFICATION".  39 

death  as  necessary  to  the  accomplishment 
of  our  salvation.  "  Being  justified  freely 
by  his  grace,  tlirough  tiie  redemption  that 
is  in  Christ  Jesus."  "But  God  commend- 
eth  his  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we 
were  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.  Much 
more  then,  being  justified  by  his  blood,  we 
shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him. 
For,  if  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  re- 
conciled to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son; 
much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be 
saved  by  his  life  ;"  Rom.  v.  8-10.  "  Thus 
it  is  written  and  tlius  it  behooved  Christ 
to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third 
day  :  and  that  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among 
all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem  ;"  Luke 
xxiv.  46-47.  "  Bat  we  see  Jesus,  who  was 
made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  for  the 
suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor,  that  he,  by  the  grace  of  God,  should 
taste  death  for  every  man.  J^'or  it  became 
him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom 
are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sons  unto 
glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  sufferings;"  Ileb.  ii.  9-10. 
"  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath 
made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his 
Father;  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  for 
ever  and  ever  ;"  Rom.  i.  5-6.  From  these 
and  kindred  passages,  it  appears,  first,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  was  necessary  to  ])ro- 
cure  salvation;  secondly,  that  his  death  did 


40  DEBATE   ON 

procure  salvation  ;  thirdly,  that  to  him  be- 
longs all  the  glory  of  our  salvation  :  there- 
fore, first,  in  him  is  all  the  merit ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, the  merit  of  oiir  own  works  or  de- 
servings  is  excluded.  "We  are  accounted 
righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of 
our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.  If  w© 
are  justified  and  saved  only  for  the  merit 
of  Christ,  our  song  in  heaven  will  be  "Unto 
him  that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  his  own  blood  ;"  but  if  we  are  justi- 
fied and  saved  by  the  merit  of  our  own 
works  and  deservings,  we  shall  sing  "Mine 
own  arm  hath  gotten  me  the  victory!"  Ey 
so  much  as  we  attempt  to  mix  human  mer- 
it with  the  blood  of  Jesus,  we  detract  from 
the  glory  of  the  cross,  and  give  toJ;he  crea- 
ture the  glory  that  belongs  to  the  Kedeemer. 
lY.  My  fourth  argument  is  the  fact  that 
faith  brings  the  soul  of  the  penitent  into 
contact  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  ren- 
ders that  blood  efficacious  to  the  removal 
of  guilt.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his 
grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Christ  Jesus :  whom  Grod  hath  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith  in  his 
blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through 
the  forbearance  of  God ;  to  declare,  I  say, 
at  this  time,  his  righteousness,  that  he 
might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him 
which  believeth  in  Jesus  ;"  Eom.  iii.  24- 
26.  The  Apostle  here  is  treating  of  the 
subject   of  justification    in   a  formal   dis- 


JUSTIFICATION.  41 

course,  and  setting  forth  God's  method 
of  pardoning  sin  in  harmony  with  the 
righteousness  of  the  divine  administra- 
tion, in  a  positive  form.  If  any  work, 
ceremony,  or  ordinance,  must  intervene 
between  faith  and  the  blood  of  Jesus,  or 
be  added  to  the  blood  of  Jesus  as  a  part  of 
the  procuring  cause,  or  to  faith  as  a  parfc 
of  the  receiving  cause,  here  was  the  place 
to  mention  it.  But  nothing  of  the  kind  is 
intimated.  Jesus  Christ  is  set  forth  to  be 
a  propitiation,  and  faith  in  his  blood  makes 
him  a  propitiation,  in  the  positive  and  effi- 
cacious sense.  Whenever  and  wherever 
faith  meets  the  blood  of  Jesus,  then  and 
there  the  righteousness  of  Grod  is  declared 
for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past — 
then  and  there  G-od  can  be  just  and  the  jus- 
tifier  of  hira  which  believeth  in  Jesus.  I 
leave  this  short  argument  right  here,  until 
Mr.  Franklin  shall  attempt  to  show  that 
faith  does  not,  and  cannot,  bring  the  soul 
into  contact  with  the  blood  of  Jesus.  Will 
he  make  the  attempt  ?     We  shall  see. 

y.  My  fifth  argument  is  drawn  from 
those  Scriptures  which  speak  of  the  im- 
putation of  faith  for  righteousness.  Abra- 
ham was  justified  thus,  and  we  are  justified 
just  as  Abraham  was.  Was  Abraham  jus- 
tified by  works,  or  by  faith  ?  "  If  by  works, 
he  hath  whereof  to  glory ;  but  no  man 
hath  whereof  to  glory  before  God  ;  there- 
fore his  justification  was  by  faith.  For 
what   saith  the  Scripture?    Abraham  be- 


43  DEBATE   ON 

lieved  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him 
for  righteousness.  Now  to  him  that  work- 
eth,  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace, 
but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believetli  on  him  tliat  justifieih 
the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  right- 
eousness;" Eom.  iv.  3-5.  "He  staggered 
not  at  the  promise  of  God  through  unbe- 
lief, but  was  strong  in  faith,  giving  glory- 
to  God ;  and  being  fully  persuaded  that 
what  he  had  promised  he  was  able  also  to 
perform  :  and  therefore  it  was  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness.  Now  it  was  not 
written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  im- 
puted to  him;  but  for  us  also,  to  whom  it 
shall  be  imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead, 
who  was  delivered  for  our  offenses,  and 
was  raised  again  for  our  justification;" 
Rom.  iv.  20-25.  The  first  quotation  shows 
how  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  with- 
out works,  and  the  second  shows  that  wo 
are  justified  in  the  same  way.  My  argu- 
ment here  is  short  and  plain.  To  be  justi- 
fied is  to  be  accounted  righteous ;  but  what 
is  it  that  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteous- 
ness? Not  repentance,  not  confession,  not 
obedience,  but  faith,  and  faith  only.  Faith 
may  imply  repentance,  confession  and  obe- 
dience; I  have  not  a  word  to  say  in  dis- 
paragement of  these,  or  of  their  import- 
ance; but  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of 
them  ever  is,  or  ever  can  be,  imputed  for 
righteousness.    Hence  we  are  never   said 


JUSTIFICATION.  4^^ 

to  be  justified  by  repentance,  by  confes- 
sion, or  by  obedience,  but  simply  by  faith. 
These  are  important  as  accessories  to  faith, 
or  as  fruits  of  faith,  but  they  cannot  oc- 
cupy the  place  or  fill  the  office  of  faith. 
I  close  this  argument  by  making  a  plain 
and  fair  proposition  to  my  respondent.  If 
he  will  show,  irom  the  Scriptures,  that 
any  other  thing  besides  faith,  or  in  addi- 
tion to  faith,  is  imputed  to  us  for  right- 
eousness, in  the  work  of  justification,  I  will 
consent  that  the  little  word  "  only,"  which 
he  dislikes  so  much,  may  be  stricken  from 
the  last  clause  of  the  Article,  which  forms 
the  proposition  before  us.  Will  he  do  it? 
He  is  a  man  of  age,  of  experience,  of  con- 
siderable pretensions  to  learning,  and  if  it 
could  be  done,  he  is  the  man  to  do  it.  Here 
is  a  plain  question.  What  else  besides  faith 
is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness  ? 

YI.  I  make  another  argument  on  the 
simple  fact  that  we  are  said  to  be  justified 
by  faith.  My  friend  will  admit  that  we 
are  justified  by  faith,  but  then  he  will  con- 
tend that  it  is  not  by  faith  only.  Let  us 
look  at  this.  What  do  we  mean  by  "faith 
only,"  in  this  connection?  It  is  said  that 
we  are  justified  by  grace,  and  grace  being 
the  only  originating  cause,  we  may  say, 
with  reference  to  that  feature  of  the  work, 
it  is  by  grace  only ;  for  grace  is  the  only 
and  all-sufficient  originating  cause.  It  is 
said  we  are  justified  by  his  blood,  and  the 
blood  of  Jesus  being  the  only  procuring 


44  DEBATE   ON 

cause  of  justification,  we  may  say,  with 
reference  to  that  feature  of  the  work,  it  is 
by  his  blood  only ;  for  the  blood  of  Jesus 
is  the  only  and  all-sufficient  procuring 
cause.  And  it  is  said  we  are  justified  by 
faith,  and  faith  being  the  only  receiving 
cause — the  only  condition — we  say,  with 
reference  to  that  feature  of  the  work,  that 
it  is  by  faith  only;  for  faith  is  the  only 
condition,  the  only  thing  that  is,  or  can  be, 
imputed  for  righteousness.  The  grace  of 
God  does  not  merely  contribute  towards 
originating  the  great  scheme  of  justifica- 
tion, it  originates  it — it  justifies;  the  blood 
of  Jesus  does  not  merely  contribute  to- 
ward procuring  justification  for  guilty 
sinners,  it  procures  it — it  justifies;  and 
faith  does  not  merely  contribute  toward 
the  justification  of  the  sinner,  it  does  the 
work — it  justifies.  If  this  be  not  true,  it 
never  could  have  been  written  that  vfe  are 
justified  hy  faith.  It  would  have  been  part- 
ly by  faith  and  partly  by  works.  To  this 
I  invite  the  attention  of  the  respondent,  in 
the  most  respectful  manner.  I  ask  him  to 
meet  the.  issue  as  here  presented.  If  he 
will  do  it,  well;  but  if  he  attempt  to  fix 
upon  the  word  "  only"  a  meaning  which  I 
have  not  fixed  uj^on  it,  and  which  is  not 
admitted  by  the  church  which  adopts  the  . 
Article  in  dispute,  he  will  thereby  pro- 
claim his  inability  to  meet  the  doctrine 
contained  in  this  proj^osition,  and  be  found 
spending  his  strength  in  demolishing   "a 


JTTSTIFICATtON.  46 

man  of  straw."  It  docs  not  become  me  to 
say  what  course  lie  will  pursue,  or  must 
pursue  ;  that  is  for  himself  to  determine  ; 
but  I  remind  you,  my  hearers,  that  we  are 
here  to  examine  the  doctrine  contained  in 
this  Article^  and  not  to  put  upon  it  forced 
and  arbitrary  constructions,  meaningless 
and  absurd,  and  then  to  amuse  you  by  ex- 
posing those  absurdities  which  nobody  be- 
lieves. We  have  before  us  higher  and 
nobler  work.  We  must  seek  for  the  truth, 
and  not  for  victory.  If  we,  as  expounders 
of  the  word,  thus  meet  our  responsibilities, 
and  you  hear  with  honest  and  prayerful 
hearts,  the  truth  will  be  promoted,  and  the 
name  of  our  God  will  be  glorified. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  FIRST  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  am  truly  happy  to  appear  before  you 
on  this  interesting  occasion,  for  the  j^urpose 
of  investigating  questions  of  vast  moment 
to  us  all,  connected  with  the  religion  of 
Jesus  Christ.  I  am  also  truly  gratified  to 
find  my  worthy  friend,  Mr.  Merrill,  in  good 
trim,  with  buoyant  spirits,  and  entering 
so  manfully  upon  our  great  work.  I  have 
been  pleased  with  his  good  temper  and 
kindly  disposition,  as  evinced  in  our  corres- 
pondence, and  I  am  also  pleased  with  the 
same  good  temper  and  kindness,  as  seen  in 
his  address  just  delivered  in  your  hearing. 


ci6  DEBATE   ON 

I  am  satisfied  that  he  has  the  coolness,  the 
learning  and  ability  to  do  entire  justice  to 
his  cause.  If  he  can  not  maintain  it,  no 
man  can.  As  my  speeches,  on  this  ques- 
tion, are  in  reply,  I  sliall  be  compelled  to 
allude  to  him  and  his  speech,  which  will  give 
me  the  appearance  of  being  more  personal 
than  he,  during  this  day's  discussion,  though 
I  hope  not  to  be  personal.  My  desire  is,  that 
our  discussion  shall  proceed  with  the  utmost 
kindness,  forbearance  and  good  feeling.  We 
are  not  tiere  to  gain  personal  victory.  I  am 
not  anxious  for  triumph  over  men,  or  par- 
ties of  men.  If  I  know  my  own  heart,  my 
desire  is  simply,  that  truth  and  righteous- 
ness may  prevail — that  peace  and  union 
may  be  promoted  among  men.  I  owe  good 
will  to  all  mankind. 

The  proposition  read  by  the  Moderator, 
in  the  affirmative  of  which  my  worthy  op- 
ponent has  addressed  you,  has  not  come  be- 
fore you  in  precisely  the  form  intended  by 
me.  I  first  presented  it  in  the  following 
form :  "  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  the  doc- 
trine that  'justification  by  faith  only,  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine  and  very  full  of 
comfort?'  "  This  is  found  in  my  second 
letter.  In  his  letter  following  this,  he 
makes  no  allusion  to  this  question  directly. 
In  my  next  reply,  or  third  letter,  1  refer  to 
it  again,  as  follows:  "You  preach,  and  your 
Discipline  affirms,  that  'justification  by  faith 
only,  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine  and  very 
full  of  comfort.'    Will  you  affirm  and  defend 


JUSTIFICATION,  ^ 

this?    If  yon  will,  I  will  meet  you  and  de- 
ny."    This  called  forth  the  following  reply, 
in  his  fourth  letter:  '•  You  appear  anxious 
to  assail  the  Ninth  Article  of  Keligion,  as 
found  in  the  Methodist  Dis(^ipline — or  at 
least  a  part  of  it — and  rather  than  have  no 
debate,  I  may  accommodate  you  with  the 
opportunity;    but  really  I  do  not  see  why 
you  are  so  intent  upon  diverting  attention 
from    the  first   issue  raised   by  yourself." 
Thus  far,  you  perceive,  nothing  but  the  lat- 
ter part  of  the  JSTinth  Article  was  assailed 
by  me,  and  Mr.  Merrill's  own  written  state- 
ment shows  that  he  so  understood  mo,  and 
when  he  speaks  of  accommodating  me,  rath- 
er than  have  no  debate,  he  has  nothing  in 
his  mind  but  the  latter  part  of  the  Article. 
In  my  letter  of  March  5th,  the  following 
shows  that  I  still  had  the  same  in  m}'-  mind : 
''The  affirmative,  upon  justification  by  faith 
only,  you  believe  ;    for  you  propose,  in  the 
letter  before  me,  to  debate  even  that,  rather 
than  have  no  debate."  In  his  letter  of  March 
9th,  with  all  this  before  him,  he  accepts  my 
proposal,  in  the  following  words  :  "  If  you 
prefer  spending  the  first  day  in  discussing 
the  Ninth  Article  of  Eeligion  in  the  Meth- 
odist Discipline,  I  am  willing  to  affirm  the 
doctrine  contained  in  it."     Thus  ended  the 
matter  in  our  correspondence.    Who  would 
have  thought  of  anything  from  this,  but  an 
acceptance  of  my  proposal?    But,  on  reach- 
ing here,  I  was  no  little  surprised  to  find 
the  whole  of  the  Ninth  Article  published 


^  DEBATE    ON 

as  the  proposition  for  our  discussion  to-day ! 
JS'or  was  I  any  less  surprised,  on  meeting 
Mr.  Merrill,  to  hear  him  maintain  that 
such  was  his  understanding,  and  refusing 
to  agree  to  anything  else.  He,  however, 
said  that  I  could  assail  whatever  portion 
of  the  Article  I  pleased.  I  have  given  this 
brief  piece  of  history  to  show  that  my  op- 
ponent enters  this  contest  with  some  mis- 
givings, and  aims  to  have  something  bear- 
ing some  resemblance  to  truth,  connected 
with  that  portion  of  his  creed  which  he 
knew  I  aimed  at. 

The  Article  reads  as  follows:  ''We  are 
accounted  righteous  before  G-od,  only  for 
the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus 
Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works 
or  deservings ;  wherefore,  that  we  are  jus- 
tified by  faith  only,  is  a  most  wholesome 
doctrine  and  very  full  of  comfort."  I  care 
nothing  for  having  the  first  part  of  this  Ar- 
ticle in  the  proposition,  only  that  it  is  whol- 
ly irreconcilable  with  the  latter  part.  ISTo- 
thing  can  be  more  self-evident  to  a  man  who 
does  his  own  thinking,  than  that  man  can 
not  be  accounted  righteous,  or  justified 
^^only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  by  faith  only.  If  justification 
is  by  "faith  only,"  it  is  not  by  the  merits 
of  Christ  only.  The  merits  of  Christ  and 
faith  are  not  the  same.  The  merit  of  Christ 
is  one  thing  and  faith  is  another,  and  if  a 
man  is  justified  by  one  only,  nothing  is 
more  clear  than  that  he  can  not  be  justi- 


JUSTIFICATION.  49'. 

fied  by  the  other  only.  No  two  things  in 
the  universe  are  more  different  and  distinct 
than  the  merit  of  Christ  and  faith.  One  is 
the  act  of  man  and  the  other  the  goodness 
or  excellence  of  Christ ;  and*  it  is  a  natural 
impossibility  for  justification  to  be  by  the 
goodness  or  excellence  of  Clirist  only  and 
by  the  act  of  the  creature  only.  No  ability, 
no  learning  nor  ingenuity,  can  reconcile 
things  thus  self-contradictory.  I  not  only 
deny  the  possibility  of  reconciling  this  con- 
tradictory Article  of  Keligion,  but  I  deny 
that  either  of  the  parts  are  true.  If  justi- 
fication is  by  the  merits  of  Christ  only^  then 
Universalism  is  true,  and  all  men  are  justi- 
fied, whether  they  believe  or  not;  for  the 
merits  of  Christ  are  for  all  men.  But  the 
truth  is,  the  goodness,  or  excellence  of 
Christ,  or  his  merit  alone^  is  so  far  from 
justifying  any  man,  that  it  will  only  be  a 
source  of  condemnation,  to  the  man  with- 
out faith,  or  with  faith  and  without  repent- 
ance. 

On  the  other  hand,  nothing  can  be  more 
unmeaning  than  to  talk  of  justification  by 
faith  only.  Faith  only,  is  faith  alone,  faith 
singly,  or  by  itself,  or  faith  without  any 
thing  else.  Mr.  Merrill  himself  does  not 
believe  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  pre- 
cise words  he  is  to  defend  on  this  occa- 
sion. Faith  only,  alone,  singly,  or  by  it- 
self, is  faith  without  anything  else,  not  ex- 
cepting the  merits  of  Christ,  his  blood,  or 
his  grace.    He  does  not  believe,  nor  does 

4 


sot  DEBATE   ON 

any  person  in  this  assembly,  that  man  can 
be  justified  by  the  act  of  the  creature — heliev- 
ing,  without  the  goodness  of  Christ,  his 
blood,  his  grace,  or  without  repentance  and 
confession,  ^ay,  more ;  he  does  not  be- 
lieve, nor  does  his  Discipline  admit,  that 
a  man  can  be  justified — not  even  infants — 
without  baptism.  Let  me  read  you  a  few 
words  from  the  Discipline,  p.  103:  "Dearly 
beloved,  forasmuch  as  all  men  are  conceived 
and  born  in  sin,  and  that  our  Savior  Christ 
saith,  iSTone  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  except  he  be  regenerate  and  born  anew 
of  water  and  of  the  Holy  Grhost,  we  beseech 
you  to  call  upon  G-od  the  Father,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  of  his  bounte- 
ous mercy  he  will  give  to  this  child  that 
thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have,  that 
he  may  be  baptized  with  water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  received  into  Christ's  holy 
church  and  be  made  a  lively  member  of  the 
same."  Again,  on  page  104,  the  minister 
is  required  to  pray  as  lollows:  "We  beseech 
Thee,  for  thine  infinite  mercies,  that  thou 
wilt  look  upon  this  child ;  wash  him  and 
sanctify  him  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  he, 
being  delivered  from  thy  wrath,  may  be  re- 
ceived into  the  ark  of  Christ's  church." 

You  perceive,  clearly,  from  these  short 
extracts,  that  the  Discipline  makes  baptism 
a  condition  of  justification,  and  to  make 
the  language  of  Jesus  apply  to  infants,  it  is 
perverted  and  most  shamefully  corrupted. 
In  the  place  of  the  plain  language  of  Jesus, 


JUSTIFICATION.  SI 

'^  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  the  Discipline  makes  him  say,  "  None 
can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  ex- 
cept he  be  regenerate  and  born  anew  of 
water  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  To  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  enter  into  a  state 
of  justification.  To  be  born  of  water,  is  to 
be  baptized,  as  the  Discipline  has  it,  and 
which,  no  doubt,  is  the  meaning  of  it.  In 
applying  it  to  infants,  they  declare  that 
not  even  they  can  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,  except  they  be  born  anew  of  water 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  except  they  be  bap- 
tized and  have  whatever  they  mean  by  be- 
ing born  of  the  Spirit.  This  language 
makes  the  birth  of  water  a  means  of  justi- 
fication, in  precisely  the  same  words  used 
to  make  born  of  the  Spirit  a  means  of  jus- 
tification. In  applying  the  language  to 
baptism,  the  Discipline  makes  "  born  of 
water  "  mean  baptism,  and  makes  it  just 
as  much  out  of  the  question  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God  without  baptism,  as  with- 
out being  born  of  the  Spirit.  To  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God,  is  to  enter  a  state  of  jus- 
tification. This  the  gentleman  cannot 
deny.  Born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit 
must  precede  entering  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Born  of  water  is  not  faith,  and  yet  it  is 
something  that  must  be,  before  a  man  can 
enter  into  the  kingdom,  both  according  to 
our  Lord's  own  teaching  and  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Discipline,  only  that  the  Discip- 


52  DEBATE   ON 

line  perverts  our  Lord's  teaching,  in  apply- 
ing it  to  infants.  As  certain,  then,  as  en- 
tering the  kingdom  of  Grod  is  entering  a 
state  of  justification,  and  born  of  water 
does  not  mean  faith,  entering  a  state  of 
justification  is  not  by  faith  only.  I  deny 
that  either  born  of  water  or  of  the  Spirit  is 
faith,  and  yet  "  except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God."  In  the  place  of  enter- 
ing by  faith  only,  here  are  two  things — 
*' born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit" — both 
in  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  Discipline, 
that  must  be,  before  a  man  can  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  This,  neither  he  nor 
any  other  man,  occupying  his  position, 
will  ever  answer. 

The  worthy  gentleman  has  gone  into  a 
fine  little  speculation,  in  explaining  the 
different  senses  in  which  we  are  justified, 
and  even  volunteered,  in  advance,  to  inform 
you  that  I  would  have  the  subject  confused. 
As  a  matter  of  course,  he  knows  before- 
hand how  I  will  have  the  subject  confused ! 
Eut,  in  this  gratuitous  prediction,  he  will 
find  himself  mistaken.  The  subject  is  not 
confused  in  my  mind,  nor  will  I  allow  him 
to  confase  it  in  your  minds.  He  is  bound 
to  stand  out  in  open  day-light  on  this  occa- 
sion. I  am  perfectly  aware  that  men  are 
justified  in  several  diff'erent  senses ;  but 
who  gave  him  the  privilege  to  select  justi- 
fication in  one  sense,  and  circumscribe  the 
debate  to  that  I    A  fine  effort  this  to  escape 


JUSTIFICATION.  53 

responsibility  !  The  Article  of  Religion 
under  discussion  confines  us  to  no  such 
limits.  It  says,  that  "we  arc  accounted 
righteous  before  God,"  or  justified  before 
God,  "  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and 
Savior  Jesus  Christ."  Then,  in  what  Mr. 
Merrill  calls  the  "  deduction  from  this,"  it 
affirms  that  "we  are  justified  by  fiiith 
only."  The  discussion  is  not  limited  to 
justification  in  one  sense  only^  but  to  all  the 
senses  in  which  "  we  are  justified  before 
God."  Our  justification  before  God,  after 
conversion,  is  as  legitimately  in  the  bounds 
of  this  discussion,  as  the  justification  in 
conversion.  The  question  we  are  to  dis- 
cuss, is  how  "  wc  are  justified  before  God," 
not  in  one  sense  only^  but  in  every  sense,  in 
which  "  we  are  justified  before  God," 
whether  in  conversion  or  after  conversion. 
He  is  to  prove  that  "  we  are  justified  before 
God  by  faith  only."  This  I  deny.  It  is 
not  by  faith  only.  In  this  attempt  at  eva- 
sion, he  has  given  pretty  clear  intimations 
that  he  is  conscious  that  justification,  in 
some  senses,  is  not  by  faith  only ;  but  he 
hopes  to  find  one  sense  in  which  it  is  by 
faith  only,  and  thus  make  some  show  of 
argument.  I  leave  this  intelligent  audience 
to  decide  how  well  he  succeeds. 

Nor  does  his  distinctions,  touching  differ- 
ent causes  of  justification,  such  as  meritori- 
ous, procuring  and  instrumental  causes,  do 
him  any  good,  unless  it  be  to  raise  a  little 
fog,  in  which  to  conceal  himself.     Faith  is 


54  DEBATE    ON 

no  more  a  meritorious  cause  than  repent- 
ance or  confession.  Faith  is  as  much  an 
act  of  the  creature  as  repentance  or  the 
confession.  Faith  no  more  procures  salva- 
tion or  justification,  than  repentance  or 
confession.  Faith  is  simply  a  means 
through  which  man  receives  salvation,  and 
without  vrhich  he  cannot  receive  it ;  but  it 
is  no  more  a  means  by  which  man  receives 
salvation  than  repentance,  nor  is  it  any 
more  true  that  a  man  cannot  be  justified 
without  faith,  than  it  is  that  with  faith, 
and  without  repentance,  he  cannot  be  justi- 
fied. Christ  is  truly  the  meritorious  cause. 
The  grace  of  God  is  the  procuring  cause ;  but 
the  grace  of  God  alone,  or  without  the  merit 
of  Christ,  does  not  save  or  justify  any  one  ; 
nor  does  the  grace  of  God,  though  it  pro- 
cures salvation,  and  the  goodness  and  ex- 
cellence of  Christ,  though  it  merits  salva- 
tion, save  any  one  without  faith,  though 
there  is  no  merit  in  faith  ;  nor  does  it  save 
any  one,  with  faith  and  without  repent- 
ance, though  there  is  no  merit  in  repent- 
ance. Faith  is  a  means  appointed  through 
which  the  salvation  or  justification  pro- 
cured by  the  grace  of  God,  and  merited  by 
Christ,  is  received  and  enjoyed;  but  not  the 
only  means:  for  none  can  receive  justifica- 
tion without  repentance,  any  more  than 
without  faith.  Both  faith  and  repentance 
are  acts  of  the  creature,  and  there  is  no 
merit  in  either  ;  the  merit  is  in  Christ ;  but 
the  merit  in  Christ  will  not  save  or  justify 


JUSTIFICATION.  56 

the  sinner  without  faith  and  repentance  : 
there  is,  therefore,  no  sense  nor  correctness 
in  saying,  that  justification  is  by  grace  only, 
the  merit  of  Christ  only,  faith  only,  or  re- 
pentance only.  It  is  not  by  the  procuring 
cause  only,  the  meritorious  cause  only,  or 
the  instrumental  cause  only,  that  we  are 
justified.  The  grace  of  God  procured  justi- 
fication, the  goodness  of  Christ  merited  it, 
and  the  divine  appointment  of  faith,  re- 
pentance, confession,  etc.,  the  means 
through  which  that  which  the  grace  of  God 
procured,  and  the  Lord  merited,  is  received 
by  the  sinner. 

I.  With  these  explanations,  I  am  ready 
to  look  at  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman. 
His  first  argument  is  drawn  from  the 
Scripture  representations  of  human  deprav- 
ity. AVith  him,  we  are  not  accounted 
righteous  before  God  for  our  works  or  de- 
servings  ;  or,  to  make  the  argument  what  he 
is  to  make  it  on  this  occasion,  we  are  not 
justified  by  our  works  or  desorvings,  be- 
cause we  are  so  deeply  depraved,  that  our 
works  are  evil,  and  our  deservings  death, 
but  we  are  justified  hy  faith  only !  Faith  is 
an  act  of  the  creature ;  hence  the  Lord  com- 
mands men  to  believe,  and  says,  "  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Here, 
then,  you  perceive  that  my  friend's  first  ar- 
gument is  directly  against  him.  He  takes 
the  position  that  our  works  are  evil,  and 
our  deservings  death,  because  we  are  so  de- 
praved, and  then  maintains  that  we  are 


&6  DEBATE  ON 

justified  by  an  act  of  this  depraved  creature 
— the  act  of  faith  only.  No  matter  how 
great  he  makes  human  depravity,  the 
greater  it  is,  the  worse  for  him  ;  for  it  is 
still  more  incredible  that  he  should  be  jus- 
tified by  the  act  of  this  depraved  creature 
— the  act  of  believing  onli/ !  In  precisely  so 
much  as  his  argument  bears  against  re- 
pentance, confession,  or  anything  else  man 
is  required  to  do,  in  order  to  justification, 
it  bears  against  faith.  If  man's  depravity 
is  a  reason  why  repentance  shall  not  be  a 
means  of  his  justification,  it  is  equally  a 
reason  why  faith  shall  not  be  a  means;  for 
one  is  as  much  an  act  of  a  depraved  crea- 
ture as  the  other.  Thus  it  is  seen,  that  his 
first  argument,  in  the  place  of  proving  his 
doctrine,  refutes  it. 

II.  His  second  argument  is  equally  sin- 
gular. It  is  founded  upon  those  Scriptures 
that  ascribe  salvation  to  the  grace  of  Grod. 
This  is  singular  enough  ?  How  saying  sal- 
vation is  by  grace,  can  prove  that  it  is  hy 
faith  only,  is  a  little  difficult  to  understand ! 
The  logic,  I  suppose,  runs  thus:  Salvation 
is  by  grace  ;  therefore  it  is  by  faith  on\y — 
"a  most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full 
of  comfort."  Clear  proof  this,  indeed ! 
But  in  the  same  connection  in  which  the 
Apostle  says,  it  is  "by  grace,"  he  says  it  is 
"through  faith."  Justification  is  not  by 
grace  only,  or  faith  only,  but  "by  grace, 
through  faith."  The  salvation  is  not  of 
yourselves,  but  the  gift  of  God,   by  grace, 


JUSTIMCATION.  57 

through  faith,  but  not  by  grace  ahne^  or 
faith  alone. 

Mr.  M.  appeared  to  anticipate  the  diffi- 
culty in  his  path,  hence  he  inquired,  "  May 
it  not  be  tliat  the  grace  of  God,  the  origina- 
ting cause  of  salvation,  has  so  provided  for 
the  justification  of  sinners  as  to  suspend  the 
offer  .upon  the  condition  of  works?" 
'■'  This,"  he  says,  "is  the  point  in  dispute." 
He  further  adds,  that  "if  it  is  of  grace  at 
all,  all  idea  of  human  merit  must  be  ex- 
cluded." No  matter  if  all  idea  of  human 
merit  is  to  be  excluded,  that  does  not  prove 
justification  by  faith  only.  We  have  no 
argument  about  human  merit.  I  have 
said  nothing  about  justification  by  human 
merit.  That  is  a  mere  figment  of  his  own 
imagination — a  mere  chimera  of  his  own  in- 
vention. All  he  has  said,  or  can  say, 
against  justification  by  human  merit,  mili- 
tates nothing  against  me.  If  it  proves 
that  repentance  or  confession  cannot  be 
means,  or  conditions,  through  which  the 
grace  of  God,  and  merit  of  Christ,  give  re- 
mission of  sin,  or  justification,  it  proves, 
with  precisely  the  same  force,  that  faith 
cannot  be  a  means  or  condition.  For  faith 
is  an  act  of  the  creature — a  depraved  crea- 
ture ;  and  there  is  no  merit  in  faith  any 
more  than  there  is  in  repentance.  Justifi- 
cation, therefore,  can  no  more  be  by  faith 
only,  than  by  repentance  only.  His  reason- 
ing thus  refutes  himself 

But  this  is  not  the  worst.     He  is  bound 


58  DEBATE   ON 

to  prove  that  justification  is  by  faith  only, 
because  it  is  not  of  works.  "  It  turns  not 
on  the  kind  of  works,  whether  moral  or  cer- 
emonial," he  informs  us.  Here  we  shall 
show  him  it  does  depend  on  the  kind  of  works, 
and,  in  doing  so,  shall  strand  him  so  that  he 
cannot  recover.  Has  he  ever  examined  the 
subject  sufficiently,  to  know  that  faith  itself 
is  a  work  ;  and,  therefore,  if  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith  only,  it  is  not  only  justification 
by  work,  but  justification  hy  work  only !  Je- 
sus says,  "  This  is  the  ivork  of  God,  that  ye 
believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent."  John 
vi.  29.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  the  "  ivork 
of  faith."  I.  Thess.  i.  3.  Thus,  you  per- 
ceive^  faith  itself  is  not  only,  as  before 
shown,  an  act  of  the  creature — an  act  of  a 
depraved  creature — but  a  work  performed 
by  the  creature;  but,  being  a  work  required 
by  the  Lord,  it  is  a  work  of  God,  but  no 
more  so  than  repentance.  If  "we  are  jus- 
tified by  faith  only,"  and  if  justification  by 
faith  only,  "  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine 
and  very  full  of  comfort,"  you  see  that  we 
are  justified  not  only  by  an  act  of  a  deprav- 
ed creature — a  work  performed  by  a  de- 
praved creature — the  work  of  faith,  but  by 
that  act,  or  that  loork,  of  a  depraved  creature 
alone.  Thus  my  opponent,  in  his  argument 
against  justification  by  work — indiscrimi- 
nately work  of  every  kind — has  refuted 
himself  without  intending  it,  or  even  know- 
ing it. 

The  true  state  of  the  case  is,  that  Paul 


JUSTIFICATION.  59 

is  simply  disclaiming  justification  by  the 
works  of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  the  deeds  of 
the  law,  but  is  not  denying  justification  by 
the  works  or  deeds  of  the  gospel.  There  is 
no  salvation  by  the  deeds,  or  obedience  of 
the  law,  but  there  is  salvation  by  the  deeds, 
or  obedience  of  the  gospel.  The  entire  ar- 
gument of  Paul  (Gal.  iii.  1-29),  is  to  show 
that  justification  is  not  by  the  law  of  Moses, 
but  by  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Hence  he  says, 
"This  only  would  I  learn  of  you,  Eeceived 
ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by 
the  hearing  of  faith  ?"  The  law  here,  is  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  the  "hearing  of  faith,"  is 
simply  hearing  the  gospel,  or  the  faith, 
which  means  the  gospel.  At  verse  13,  he 
says,  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law."  This  is  manifestly  the 
law  of  Moses.  He  does  not  mean  to  say 
that  Christ  has  redeemed  us  fi'om  the  curse 
of  the  gospel ;  nor  is  it  the  gospel  that  says, 
"  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree."  Abraham  was  not  justified  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law  of  Moses,  but  before  the 
law  ;  not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircum- 
cision,  or  before  circumcision — he  "believ- 
ed God  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness;" and  Abraham  is  "the  father  of 
circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the 
circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  iu 
the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abra- 
ham, which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircum- 
cised."  The  faith  of  Abraham  had  "  steps 
of  faith,"  for  us  to  walk   in,  and   not  faith 


60  DEBATE   ON 

alone,  or  faith  without  any  steps  for  men 
to  walk  in.  "Abraham  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised  ; 
that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circum- 
cised; that  righteousness  might  be  impu- 
ted unto  them  also ;  and  the  father  of  cir- 
cumcision to  them  who  are  not  of  the  cir- 
cumcision only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the 
steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham, 
w^iich  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised." 
Eomans  iv.  11-12.  Where  shall  we  find 
these  "steps  of  that  faith?"  We  must  ap- 
peal to  another  Apostle  to  describe  these 
"steps  of  that  faith,"  by  which  Abraham 
was  justified,  and  the  steps  that  we  must 
walk  in^  if  that  righteousness  is  imputed 
to  us. 

I  will  go  to  the  apostle  James  to  find  the 
steps  of  the  fiiith  of  Abraham,  and  invite 
my  worthy  friend  to  come  and  walk  with 
me  in  the  steps  of  that  faith,  that  the  right- 
eousness of  Abraham  may  be  imputed  to 
us.  I  commence  James  ii.  14:  "What 
doth  it  profit,  my  brethren,  though  a  man 
say  he  hath  faith  and  have  not  works  ? 
Can  faith  save  him?"  My  opponent  may 
say  faith  can  save  him,  but  the  Apostle 
does  not  say  so.  Nor  is  he  here  speaking 
of  the  works  of  the  law  by  which  no  man 
could  be  justified,  but  the  works  of  faith — 
of  Abraham — of  the  gospel — good  works 
which  God  hath  ordained  that  we  should 


JUSTIFICATION.  61 

walk  in  them.  Let  us  hear  him  proceed: 
"If  a  brother  or  sister  be  naked,  or  desti- 
tute of  daily  food,  and  one  of  you  say  unto 
them.  Depart  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed  and 
filled;  notwithstanding  ye  give  them  not 
those  things  which  are  needful  for  the 
body;  what  doth  it  profit?"  My. oppo- 
nent's position  makes  him  say,  It  justifies, 
for  justification  is  by  faith  only,  or  faith 
without  anything  else.  But  wliat  does  the' 
Apostle  say?  He  says,  "  Even  so  faith,  if 
it  hath  not  works,  is  dead,  being  alone." 
My  opponent  cannot  say  I  am  not  in  order, 
for  he  introduced  the  case  of  Abraham. 
Let  us,  then,  continue  to  hear  the  Apostle. 
"  Yea,  a  man  may  say,  Thou  hast  faith,  and 
I  have  works;  show  me  thy  faith  without 
thy  works,  and  I  will  show  thee  my  faith 
by  my  works.  Thou  belicvest  that  there 
is  one  God — thou  doestwell;  the  devils  also 
believe,  and  tremble."  I  confess  this  is 
a  severe  comment  upon  my  friend's  doc- 
trine, but  he  must  not  blame  me  for  it. 
The  next  expression  is  very  severe.  He 
says,  "Wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man,  that 
faith  without  works  is  dead  ?  Was  not 
Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works, 
when  he  had  offered  Isaac,  his  son,  upon 
the  altar."  Here  we  find  "  the  steps  of 
that  faith"  of  Abraham,  and  the  time  when 
he  was  justified  by  it — when  he  offered  his 
Fon,  he  w^as  justified  by  faith,  but  not  by 
faith  only,  but  justified  by  works  also. 
*'  Seest  thou,"  says  the  holy  Apostle,  "  how 


62  DEBATE   ON 

faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by 
works  was  faith  made  perfect."  Hear  him 
proceed:  "And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled 
which  saith,  Abraham  believed  God,  and 
it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteous- 
ness." Here,  then,  in  tracing  the  steps  of 
Abraham,  we  find  him  justified  by  faith, 
though  not  by  faith  only,  but  works 
wrought  with  his  faith,  and  by  his  faith 
and  obedience  together  he  was  justified, 
and  he  was  called  the  friend  of  God.  The 
Apostle  says,  ''  Ye  see,  then,  how  that,  by 
works,  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith 
only."  He  enforces  it  still  further,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Likewise  also  was  not  Eahab  the 
harlot  justified  by  works  when  she  had  re- 
ceived the  messengers,  and  had  sent  them 
out  another  way  ;  for  as  the  body  without 
the  Spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is 
dead  also." 

III.  The  third  argument  of  my  friend 
amounts  to  nothing,  only  to  add  one  to 
the  numerical  number;  and  one,  too,  that 
refutes  the  proposition  he  has  engaged  to 
prove.  Who  denies  that  salvation  is  as- 
cribed to  the  death  of  Christ  ?  We  knew 
this  long  ago  ;  but  knew  at  the  same  time 
that  there  is  no  propriety  in  saying  that 
justification  is  by  the  death  of  Christ  and, 
at  the  same  time,  by  faith  alone. 

lY.  His  fourth  argument,  is  nothing  but 
an  assumption,  that  he  did  not  have  cour- 
age to  state,  viz.  :  That  faith  alone  brings 
the  penitent  into  contact  v/ith  the  blood  of 


JUSTIFICATION.  63 

Christ,  and  renders  it  efScacious  to  tlie 
removal  of  gnilt.  He  left  the  word  only,  or 
alone,  out.  How  ridiculous  the  idea  of 
faith  rendering  the  blood  of  Christ  effica- 
cious. Faith  produces  no  change  in  the 
blood  of  Christ,  but  produces  a  change  in 
man,  preparing  him  for  the  cleansing  of 
the  blood  of  Christ. 

Y.  His  fifth  argument  has  been  answered 
with  his  third,  being  nothing  but  the  same 
thing,  repeated  under  a  new  number,  or 
head. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  SECOND  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators  and  Respected  Hearers  : 

Before  resuming  the  course  of  affirmative 
argument,  by  which  I  design  further  to  de- 
monstrate the  soundness  of  my  proposition, 
I  will  call  your  attention  to  a  few  things  in 
the  speech  which  you  last  heard. 

The  "  brief  piece  of  history,"  which  my 
friend  has  given,  indicates  that  he  is  not 
quite  satisfied  with  his  position  here.  He 
wanted  to  take  part  of  the  Article,  but  I  did 
not  see  fit  to  allow  that.  If  the  doctrine 
contained  in  the  Article  is  unsound,  there 
can  certainly  be  no  unfairness  in  examin- 
ing it  as  a  whole.  He  has  the  right  to  as- 
sail any  part  of  it  he  may  choose,  but  I 
stand  pledged  before  you  to  maintain  it  all. 
As  to  the  correspondence,  I  have  only  to  say 


64  DEBATE   ON 

that  all  who  read  it  carefully,  will  see  that 
I  never  agreed  to  anylliirig  other  than  to 
affirm  the  doctrine  coutained  in  the  Article. 

My  friend  never  called  in  question  the 
correctness  of  ray  interpretation  of  the  Ar- 
ticle, nor  did  he  assail  the  doctrine  I  pre- 
sented as  contained  in  the  Article,  but  in  a 
very  bland  way  proceeded  to  assail  a  doc- 
trine which  he  told  you  I  did  not  believe, 
and  which  the  Discipline  does  not  admit! 
Why  did  he  not  show  the  error  of  my  in- 
terpretation ?  He  could  not.  Why,  then, 
did  he  not  assail  the  doctrine  I  presented? 
AYell,  I  suppose  he  thought  he  could  make 
better  speed  in  assailing  a  doctrine  which 
nobody  cares  to  defend.  Who  believes  in 
faith  without  the  blood  of  Christ  as  its  ob- 
ject ?  Who  believes  in  justification  by  faith 
separate  and  apart  from  the  blood  of  Jesus 
and  the  grace  of  God  ?  The  Article  teaches 
us  no  such  thing;  the  church  which  adopts 
the  Article  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  such 
doctrine;  no  legitimate  construction  of  her 
language  can  make  her  give  the  least  coun- 
tenance to  it.  But  my  friend,  by  pursuing 
this  course,  proclaims  his  inability  to  meet 
the  proposition  fairly.  I  need  not  repeat 
ray  interpretation  of  the  Article.  Mr. 
Franklin  must  make  a  better  out  than  this, 
or  his  reputation  as  a  debater  will  suffer. 

He  read  you  some  passages  from  the  bap- 
tismal service,  trj-ing  to  prove  that  our 
church  makes  ba^^tism  a  condition  of  par- 
don or  justification.    Ho  appears  in  great 


JUSTIFICATION.  05< 

haste  to  debate  our  fourth  proposition.  That 
subject  will  be  before  us  on  Saturday  next, 
and  I  apprehend  he  will  get  enough  of  it 
when  the  time  comes.  In  regard  to  his  use 
of  the  language  read,  I  will  only  remark 
that,  in  his  hands,  to  adopt  his  own  very 
expressive  language,  ''it  is  perverted  and 
most  shamefully  corrupted!"  When  the 
Discipline  professes  to  quote  the  language 
of  Christ,  it  quotes  word  for  word,  as  he 
might  have  seen  by  turning  one  leaf.  His 
misapprehension  of  the  language  read  will 
be  pointed  out  in  proper  time. 

I  did  express  some  "  fear  "  that  the  gen- 
tleman had  the  different  kinds  of  justifica- 
tion confused  in  his  mind,  and  his  remarks 
on  the  subject  have  satisfied  me  that  my 
fear  was  well  grounded.  He  objects  to  my 
making  those  distinctions,  calling  it  "  a  fine 
little  s^Deculation,"  and  then  immediately 
confesses  that  such  distinctions  ought  to  be 
made !  He  says,  "  I  am  perfectly  aware 
that  men  are  justified  in  several  different 
senses."  But  he  wishes  to  know  why  I 
would  confine  the  discussion  to  justification 
in  one  sense  ;  my  answer  is,  because  the  Ar- 
ticle under  discussion  speaks  of  justification 
only  in  the  one  sense.  Where  does  he  get 
authority  for  applying  the  Article  to  any 
other  subject  than  that  contained  in  it  ? 

Nor  does  he  like  the  distinctions  between 
the  different  causes  of  justification.  A  pro- 
per attention  to  those  distinctions  would 
take  all  the  wind  out  of  his  sail.     In  this 

5 


6&  DEBATE   ON 

connection  he  said  something  about  raising 
"fog,"  but  it  is  not  "  fog"  that  he  fears — it 
is  the  light  that  alarms  him.  Eut  he  must 
admit  that  there  are  different  causes  of  jus- 
tification. Ho  can  not  deny  the  fact,  yet 
he  charges  me  with  raising  "  fog,"  because 
I  point  out  these  causes  !  Why  did  he  not 
take  hold  of  the  distinctions  I  made,  and. 
show  you  what  was  wrong  about  them? 
Why  did  he  not  prove  that  the  Article  ig- 
nores or  excludes  the  different  causes  of  jus- 
tification ?  He  knew  well  that  this  was  im- 
possible ;  and  it  was  much  easier  to  talk 
about  "  fog."  I  maintain  that  we  are  jus- 
tified by  grace  only,  by  the  blood  of  Jesus 
only,  and  by  faith  only;  that  grace  is  the 
only  originating  cause,  that  the  blood  is  the 
only  procuring  cause,  and  that  faith  is  the 
only  receiving  cause :  has  he  made  an  at- 
tack on  this  doctrine?  He  has  not.  He 
asserts  that  faith  is  not  a  meritorious  cause 
any  more  than  repentance  ;  but  who  said  it 
was  ?  He  says  "  faith  no  ^xotq  procures  jus- 
tification than  repentance  or  confession  ;" 
but  who  said  it  does  ?  I  never  did.  The 
blood  of  Jesus  merited  and  procured  justi- 
fication, and  faith  appropriates  the  merited 
blessing.  But  he  puts  faith,  repentance,  etc., 
upon  an  equality  as  respects  the  work  of  jus- 
tification. In  this  he  differs  from  all  the  in- 
spired writers.  JSTot  one  of  them  ever  said 
we  are  justified  by  repentance,  or  by  con- 
fession. Faith  implies  these,  but  they  can 
not  fill  the  ofiice  of  faith.     They  are  never 


1 


JUSTIFICATION.  &f\ 

imputed  for  righteousness.  They  are  in- 
deed necessary  to  faith,  or  inseparable  from 
the  exercise  of  a  genuine  faith,  but  they  do 
not  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  justifica- 
tion with  faith.  As  for  a  justification  by 
faith  without  repentance,  I  know  nothing 
about  it ;  but  while  faith  is  accompanied  by 
repentance,  it  is  the  faith  and  not  the  re- 
pentance that  justifies  the  soul. 

The  gentleman  made  an  attack  upon  my 
argument  from  the  Scripture  representation 
of  depravity.  But  did  he  either  admit  or 
deny  the  correctness  of  my  view  of  that  sub- 
ject? He  did  not  venture  to  do  so.  My 
argument  was,  that  we  are  so  deeply  de- 
praved that  the  ground  of  justification  can 
not  be  in  us  ;  bow  does  he  reply  ?  He  tells 
you  that  faith  is  the  act  of  the  creature,  and 
that  if  we  can  not  be  justified  by  works,  be- 
cause of  our  depravity,  we  can  not  be  by 
faith  for  the  same  reason.  He  probably  did 
not  observe  that  in  this  he  was  opposing 
St.  Paul,  who  appeals  to  the  universality  of 
human  depravity,  in  proof  that  we  must  bo 
justified  by  faith  and  not  by  works.  Faith 
is  the  act  of  the  creature,  but  it  is  also  tho 
"  fruit  of  the  Spirit."  It  is  not  the  product 
of  nature,  but  of  grace  ;  and  it  is  not  of  the 
same  character  with  "works,"  for  it  stands 
contrasted  with  works.  True  it  works,  and 
is  called  a  work,  but  still  it  is  a  work  pecu- 
liar in  its  character.  Hence  Paul  speaks  of 
"  him  that  workcLh  not,  butbelieveth."  My 
friend  would    have  objected   to  this.      He 


68  DEBATE   ON 

would  have  insisted  that  believing  and 
"wording  were  one  and  the  same  thing.  He 
never  could  have  written  as  Paul  did.  The 
argument  from  depravity  stands  untouched. 

He  also  attempted  to  reply  to  my  argu- 
ment founded  on  those  Scriptures  which 
ascribe  salvation  to  the  grace  of  Grod.  But 
did  he  analyze  that  argument,  and  show  its 
fallacy?  Did  he  show  how  justification  can 
be  by  grace  and  by  works  both  ?  l:sot  at 
all !  He  knew  that  this  argument  was 
made  by  St.  Paul  himself.  In  regard  to 
this  argument,  he  says  :  "If  it  proves  that 
repentance  or  confession  can  not  be  means 
or  conditions,  through  which  the  grace  of 
God,  and  merit  of  Christ,  give  remission  of 
sin,  or  justification,  it  proves,  with  precise- 
ly the  same  force,  that  faith  can  not  be  a 
means  or  condition."  If  he  will  just  over- 
throw that  position  of  the  Apostle,  and 
show  that  faith  and  works  ought  not  to  be 
contrasted,  he  may  then  reason  thus.  But 
he  says  "  there  is  no  merit  in  faith  any 
more  than  there  is  in  repentance."  Who 
said  there  was?  But  did  God  therefore  do 
wrong  in  appointing  faith,  instead  of  re- 
pentance, to  be  the  receiving  cause  of  justi- 
fication? Have  I  ascribed  any  merit  to 
faith  ?  "  It  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by 
grace;"  Bom.  iv.  IG.  It  could  not  be  by 
grace  through  works,  but  it  is  of  gracBj 
through  faith. 

But  my  friend  is  going  to  "  strand"  me 
so   that  I   can   not  recover !     Worse  and 


JUSTIFICATION.  '69 

worse  !  I  have  refuted  myself  without  in- 
tending it,  or  even  knowing  it !  Well,  I 
j)resume  he  would  have  been  safe  in  adding, 
"without  anyone  else  knowing  it."  But 
how  does  he  make  all  this  out?  By  show- 
ing over  again  that  faith  is  a  work  !  Thus 
he  will  persist  in  confounding  works  and 
faith,  although  the  Scriptures  contrast 
them.  He  appears  to  think  that  because 
God  appointed  faith  as  the  condition  of  jus- 
tification, faith  being  the  work  of  the 
creature,  therefore  some  other  work  of  the 
creature  must  be  as  meritorious  as  faith, 
and  just  as  much  a  condition  of  justifica- 
tion as  faith  ! 

But  we  must  look  at  his  distinction  be- 
tween the  works  of  the  law,  and  the  works 
of  the  gospel.  There  is  a  difference  between 
the  works  of  the  law,  and  those  of  the  gos- 
pel, but  Mr.  Franklin  has  failed  to  point 
out  the  difference.  I  think  it  probable  that 
he  will  try  this  over  again.  What  does  he 
mean  by  the  law  of  Moses?  Does  he  refer 
to  the  ceremonial  or  the  moral  law  ?  When 
Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Eomans,  contends 
against  justification  by  the  deeds  of  the  law, 
he  refers  to  both.  Does  Mr.  Franklin  do 
the  same  ?  But  if  there  are  any  works 
which  mortals  can  perform,  that  would  be 
pleasing  and  acceptable  to  G-od,  they  are 
such  as  the  moral  law  of  God  requires.  The 
reason  why  men  are  not  justified  by  tlie 
deeds  of  the  law,  is  not  found  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  works  of  the  law,  but  in  the 


70  DEBATE  ON 

fact  that  human  depravity  is  so  great  that 
no  human  actions  can  stand  the  test  when 
tried  by  the  law.  As  a  rule  of  action,  the 
moral  law  is  the  same  under  Jesus  that  it 
was  under  Moses.  The  moral  law,  as  a  rule 
of  conduct,  is  not  repealed.  The  gospel  did 
not  supercede  it,  nor  affect  our  obligation 
to  it.  The  best  works  we  can  perform,  are 
the  works  of  the  law.  We  obey  the  gospel 
by  making  the  law  of  God  our  standard  of 
moral  action.  But  never  since  the  fall,  have 
men  been  justified  by  works.  Abraham 
was  not,  yet  he  lived  before  the  law  ;  that 
is,  before  the  law  of  Moses  was  given. 
Paul  af&rms  that  he  was  justified  by  faith. 
His  faith  stood  opposed  to  works  ;  not 
merely  to  the  works  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
for  that  law  was  unknown  ;  but  opposed  to 
works  as  such.  I^o  man  ever  was  justified 
by  the  law  of  Moses,  strictly  speaking  ; 
that  law  pointed  to  Christ,  and  to  the 
promise  of  blessing  through  him,  but  it 
could  not  justify  the  soul.  Abraham  was 
justified  by  faith  before  that  law  was  given  ; 
and  his  faith  is  contrasted,  by  the  Apostle, 
with  his  works;  therefore  the  works  re- 
ferred to  by  St.  Paul,  are  not  merely  works 
of  the  ceremonial  law,  but  works  as  such — 
works  good  in  themselves,  but  which  even 
Abraham  did  not,  and  could  not  perform, 
so  as  to  secure  thereby  the  blessing  of  God. 
But  Abraham's  faith  was  not  alone.  This 
my  friend  dwells  upon,  as  though  it  milita- 
ted against  my  position.     But  it  does  not. 


JUSTIFICATION.  71 

Faith  is  dead  when  it  is  alone.  It  does  not 
act ;  hence  it  does  not  justify.  I  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  a  dead  faith.  But  while 
faith  is  not  alone,  it  is  07ily  the  faith  that  re- 
ceives the  blessing  of  pardon.  If  my  friend 
cannot  understand  this,  I  will  endeavor  to 
illustrate  it  and  make  it  plainer.  But  I  go 
with  him  to  consult  St.  James.  Mr.  Frank- 
lin assumes  that  Paul  and  James  speak  of 
justification  in  the  saine  sense.  If  they  do, 
they  contradict  each  other.  An  infidel 
might  take  his  position,  and  thus  array 
one  Apostle  against  another,  but  surely  a 
Christian  minister  ought  not.  There  is  no 
contradiction  between  these  men  of  God. 
One  speaks  of  justification  in  the  sense  of 
pardon  and  the  other  in  the  sense  of  ap- 
probation; therefore  one  teaches  justifica- 
tion by  faith  without  works,  and  the  other 
by  works.  Abraham  was  justified  in  both 
senses.  He  was  justified  by  faith,  wheii  he 
believed  Grod,  and  it  was  counted  to  him 
for  righteousness ;  this  was  before  Isaac 
was  born.  He  was  then  accounted  right- 
eous. This  was  one  justification,  the  one  of 
which  Paul  speaks,  but  it  was  not  his  only 
justification.  James  tells  us  of  another. 
He  was  justified  by  works,  when  he  ofiered 
Isaac,  his  son,  upon  the  altar. 

This  was  quite  a  number  of  years  after 
the  former  justification  ;  but  my  friend  will 
have  Abraham  justified  but  once,  and  that 
not  for  several  years  after  he  believed  God, 
and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 


SZ  DEBATE   ON 

ncss.  Thus  he  makes  James  contradict 
Paul,  and  takes  it  upon  himself  to  contra- 
dict them  both  !  He  is  extremely  unfortu- 
nate in  his  positions. 

Eut  he  had  something  to  say  about  "the 
steps  of  Abraham's  faith."  What  does  this 
mean  ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  was 
accepted  as  righteous,  was  justified;  but  his 
faith  led  to  obedience.  He  did  what  God 
commanded.  He  thus  proved  his  faith, 
and  increased  it.  Then  God  commended 
his  conduct,  giving  him  particular  evi- 
dences of  his  approbation. 

So  with  all  who  follow  his  example.  Eut 
does  this  prove  that  Abraham  was  never 
justified  until  he  had  offered  Isaac,  his  son, 
upon  the  altar?  Not  by  any  means.  Then 
the  argument  of  my  friend  fails.  Abraham 
was  a  justified  man  before  Isaac  was  born ; 
but  he  still  trusted  in  God,  obeyed  him, 
and  waited  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise. 
His  faith  wrought  obedience  ;  his  obedience 
strengthened  his  faith  in  turn,  and  prepared 
him  for  greater  trials.  The  great  trial  came, 
but  he  was  ready.  "  Faith  wrought  with 
his  works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made 
perfect."  But  was  faith  made  perfect  be- 
fore or  after  the  first  justification  of  Abra- 
ham ?  Will  Mr.  Franklin  answer  this? 
But  I  need  not  pursue  the  subject  further, 
until  my  friend  renews  his  efi'ort  to  show 
that  James  and  Paul,  and  our  proposition, 
all  speak  of  justification  in  the  same  sense. 

His    allusions    to   my   other  arguments 


JUSTIFICATION.  73 

were  too  slight  to  require  any  atteation. 
Until  he  gathers  courage  to  make  a  strong- 
er attack  upon  them  than  he  has  yet  done, 
I  need  pay  no  attention  to  what  he  has  said. 
It  is  quite  ea?,y  to  say  an  argument  contains 
nothing  but  assumption,  and  if  he  is  satis- 
fied with  that  sort  of  reply,  of  course  I 
shall  not  complain.  I  hope,  however,  he 
will  yet  muster  courage  to  look  the  other 
four  arguments  full  in  the  face.  In  the 
mean  time,  I  will  present  him  another. 

YII.  My  seventh  argument  is,  that  faith 
removes  condemnation  from  the  heart.  I 
base  this  iipon  John  iii.  18:  "He  that  be- 
lieveth  on  him  is  not  condemned ;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already, 
because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name 
of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  Grod."  The  ar- 
gument here  is  short  and  direct.  Condem- 
nation and  justification  are  opposites.  A 
man  cannot  be  in  both  conditions  at  the 
same  time.  He  that  is  not  condemned  is 
justified.  But  he  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned ;  therefore,  he  that  believeth  is 
justified.  The  moment  a  man  becomes  a 
believer,  he  is  justified,  or  this  psssage  is 
not  true.  True,  his  faith  will  work  and 
bring  forth  the  fruits  of  obedience,  but  that 
the  believer  must  remain  in  condemnation 
until  faith  performs  this  work,  is  a  ground- 
less assumption,  at  war  with  this  Scrip- 
ture, and  contradictory  to  the  whole  tenor 
of  revelation.  I  propose  to  my  friend  a 
plain  question.     Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a 


74  DEBATE  ON 

believer  existing  in  a  state  of  condemna- 
tion ?  My  position  is  that  every  believer 
is  justified.  But  if  so,  the  fruits  of  faith 
are  not  brought  forth  before  foith  itself  is 
accounted  for  righteousness.  Obedience  fol- 
lows justification,  as  it  follows  faith.  But 
no  impenitent  man  is  a  believer;  hence  no 
impenitent  man  can  be  justified. 

IN^ow,  my  friends,  lot  me  again  remind 
you  that  we  are  here  to  discuss  the  doctrine 
contained  in  this  Article;  and  with  any  dif- 
ferent doctrine  we  have  nothing  to  do.  I 
insist  upon  it  that]\Ir.  Franklin  must  either 
show  that  I  interpret  the  article  errone- 
ously, or  he  must  take  the  doctrine  as  I 
present  it.  His  replies  to  other  doctrines, 
not  found  in  the  proi:)Osition,  are  all  irrele- 
vant. His  forced,  arbitrary  construction  of 
the  Article,  is  not  my  afiirmative.  I  have 
practiced  no  concealment — raised  no  "  fog  ;" 
but  he  has  refused  to  show  the  error  of  my 
construction,  or  to  answer  the  doctrine  I 
have  advanced.  I  leave  you  to  decide  as 
to  the  reason  of  his  course. 


MR.  FRAXKLIX'S  SECOND  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

Before  I  proceed  to  reply  to  the  speech 
which  you  have  just  heard,  I  shall  attend 
to  another  item  or  two.  The  gentleman 
informs  us  that  he  is  advocating  faith  only, 
and  not  faith  alone.     This  is  rather  a   nice 


JUSTIFICATION.  75 

distinction  !  He  believes  in,  and  advocates, 
justification  by  faith  only,  but  does  not  be- 
lieve in  justification  by  faith  alone!  This 
is  rather  too  small  a  place  for  a  man  of 
moderate  dimensions  to  escape  through.  Is 
there  any  man  here  who  does  not  know 
that  justification  by  faith  only,  is  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone  ?  Faith  only,  and  faith 
alone,  are  simply  two  ways  of  expressing 
the  same  thing.  His  statement,  in  his  first 
speech,  that  he  believes  in,  and  defends, 
justification  by  faith  only,  but  not  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone,  looks  very  much  like  a 
dodge  to  avoid  the  precise  issue  between  tis 
to-day.  If  I  understand  his  Discipline, 
and  the  arguments  of  his  brethren  upon  it, 
he  is  here  to  prove  justification  is  by  faith 
alone,  and  his  friends  will  be  much  disap- 
pointed to  see  him  attempt  to  evade  the 
issue,  in  the  place  of  meeting  it  fairly,  and 
defending  it  as  they  expected.  The  word 
only,  he  has  informed  you,  is  the  word  the 
trouble  is  about.  I  have  no  controversy 
with  any  other  word  in  the  part  of  the  Ar- 
ticle which  I  proposed  to  assail.  I  object 
to  that  word,  because  it  excludes  everything 
else  but  faith.  It  has  no  other  ofiice  in  the 
sentence,  but  to  exclude  everything  else. 
Faith  only,  in  the  sentence  in  question,  is 
faith  singly,  by  itself  or  alone,  and  no  cavil- 
ing can  make  anything  else  out  of  it.  He 
cannot  tell  what  the  word  only  docs  mean, 
if  it  does  not  mean  alone.  Let  him  give  a 
definition   of  the   word  only  that    is    not 


76  DEBATE   ON 

equivalent  to  alone^  and  claim  that  gnch 
meaning  is  sanctioned  by  the  Methodist 
ministry,  and  see  if  he  does  not  place  him- 
self in  a  predicament  where  he  will  feel  un- 
pleasant. 

This  attempt  to  escape  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  this  word,  to  a  man  who  understands 
the  matter,  is  about  equivalent  to  giving  np 
the  controversy.  When  he  tries  to  make 
you  believe  that  justification,  by  faith  only^ 
is  not  justification  by  faith  alone,  he  virtu- 
ally admits  that  justification  by  faith  alone, 
cannot  be  sustained,  or  is  not  a  "  most 
wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  com- 
fort," and  that  he  is  perfectly  conscious  of 
it.  Yet  justification  by  faith  onli/,  is  justifi- 
cation by  faith  alojie,  the  precise  thing  he 
has  this  day  appeared  upon  the  stage  to 
prove.     From  this  there  is  no  escape. 

We  must  keep  his  positions  distinctly  in 
view.  In  the  place  of  coming  up  to  the 
work,  and  meeting  the  issue  fairly,  he  has 
evaded  in  the  following  particulars  : 

1.  He  managed  to  have  the  whole  of  the 
[Ninth  Article  in  the  place  of  the  clause  that 
we  had  specified  and  agreed  upon,  so  as  to 
give  him  a  little  more  appearance  of  having 
a  proposition  with  some  part  of  it  bearing 
some  semblance  to  the  truth.  This  effort 
evinced  a  want  of  confidence  in  the  precise 
thing  he  was  expected  to  meet  fairly  and 
prove. 

2.  The  next  attempt  at  evasion,  was  to 
Bpeak  of  justification  in  different  senses^  and 


JUSTIFICATION.  77 

inform  you  that  I  would  have  the  subject 
confused.  But  it  matters  not  how  many 
senses  we  are  justified  in.  He  is  as  much 
bound  to  show  that  justification  in  one 
sense  is  by  faith  only,  as  justification  in  any 
other  sense.  The  subject  we  are  to  discuss, 
is  simply  whether  justification  is  by  faith 
only,  no  matter  what  sense  it  is,  in  which 
we  are  justified.  I  could  not  permit  him  to 
escape  here,  by  narrowing  the  proposition 
down  to  justification  in  one  sense  only,  but  he 
must  stand  up  to  justification  in  every  sense 
in  which  we  are  justified  before  God,  and 
maintain  that  it  is  by  faith  only. 

3.  The  third  attempt  at  evasion,  was  to 
make  a  distinction  between  justification  by 
faith  only  and  faith  alone.  But  here  is  a 
manifest  failure,  for  there  is  nothing  clearer 
than  that  faith  only  is  faith  alone. 

Nothing  is  more  unfavorable  to  a  man's 
argument  than  to  see  a  flinching  from  the 
real  issue.  Why  did  he  not  state  the  ques- 
tion in  the  precise  language,  or  substanti- 
ally the  same  as  found  in  the  part  of  the 
Article  assailed  by  me  ?  It  is  clear  that  he 
did  not  like  to  meet  the  precise  point  that 
I  had  assailed,  and  attempt  to  make  it 
good.  Why  did  he  go  into  metaphysical 
speculations  about  justification  in  different 
senses,  when  he  is  as  much  bound  to  show 
that  justification,  in  one  sense,  is  by  faith 
only,  as  justification  in  any  other  sense  is 
by  faith  only  ?  Wby  did  he  undertake  to 
make  a  distinction  between  faith  only  and 


78  DEBATE   ON 

faith  alone,  only  from  his  consciousness 
that  his  position,  that  justification  by  faith 
only,  or  faith  alone,  could  not  be  maintain- 
ed. Probably  he  was  not  aware  of  it,  but 
such  does  appear  to  be  the  fact. 

If  the  worthy  gentleman  please,  we  will 
look  at  the  commission  the  Lord  gave  the 
Apostles,  and  see  if  he  intended  them  to 
preach  justification  by  faith  only.  Let  us 
hear  our  Lord :  "  Gro  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature ;  he 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved."  In  this  short  extract  of  the  com- 
mission, we  find  two  things  to  be  done. 
One  was  to  believe  ;  the  other  was  to  be 
baptized.  They  were  to  do  both  of  these 
things  with  one  object  in  view,  or  in  order 
to  one  object.  That  object  was,  that  they 
might  be  saved,  pardoned  or  justified.  The 
gentleman  cannot  make  the  word  saved 
here,  mean  saved  in  heaven,  or  with  the 
everlasting  salvation,  for  this  would  make 
the  Lord  promise  that  he  that  believeth, 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  in  heaven. 
This  the  Lord  does  not  promise ;  for  salva- 
tion in  heaven,  or  ultimate  salvation,  does 
not  simply  depend  upon  faith  and  baptism, 
but  also  upon  faithful  perseverance  till 
death.  Eut  his  promise  is,  that  he  that  be- 
lieveth, and  is  baptized,  shall  be  pardoned 
or  justified.  This,  too,  is  the  precise  sense 
in  whicli  he  admits  he  is  to  prove  that  "we 
are  justified  by  faith  only."  Baptism  has 
precisely  the  same  object  or  design,  here,  a» 


JUSTIFICATION.  79 

faith.  The  object  or  design  of  faith  is  sal- 
vation or  justification.  Baptism  not  only 
has  the  same  object  or  design  that  faith 
has,  but  it  is  stated  in  precisely  the  same 
words.  As  the  object  of  faith  and  baptism 
is  stated  in  precisely  the  same  words  here, 
it  most  unequivocally  is  the  same  thing. 
My  friend  admits  that  the  object  of  faith  is 
justification.  The  precise  same  words  ex- 
jircss  the  object  of  baptism  in  the  identical 
&ame  place.  The  object  of  baptism,  then, 
is  justification.  The  Lord  would  not  have 
expressed  the  design  of  faith  and  baptism 
in  the  same  sentence,  and  in  the  exact  same 
words,  if  the  two  things  to  be  done  had  not 
been  in  order  to  the  same  end.  The  Apos- 
tles were  not  to  tell  men  to  believe  alone  for 
justification,  but  to  hclieve  and  he  baptized^ 
in  order  to  salvation  or  justification.  This 
argument  he  will  never  answer.  The  Lord 
has  here  put  faith  and  baptism  both  to- 
gether for  the  same  purpose,  and  man  may 
not  put  them  asunder. 

When  the  Lord  said,  "  Except  ye  repent, 
ye  shall  all  likewise  perish,"  he  makes  re- 
pentance in  order  to  justification,  just  as 
much  as  faith.  Acts  ii.  38,  he  puts  both  re- 
pentance and  baptism  into  his  requirements 
in  order  to  justification,  in  the  following 
words :  "Eepent  and  be  baptized  every  one 
of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  you  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  the  promise  is 
unto  you  and  to  3'our  children,  and  to  all 


80"  DEBATE   ON 

them  that  are  afar  off."  Paul  defines  the 
promise  to  Abraham  to  be  to  justify  the 
heathen,  or  the  Gentile,  through  faith. 
The  promise  included  Jesus,  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity,  the  opening  of  the 
way  for  man  to  come  to  God,  and  his  justi- 
fication by  faith.  When  Peter  preached  on 
Pentecost,  the  time  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
j)romise  had  come,  and  the  Lord  was  ready 
to  commence  justifying  sinners  through 
faith.  The  first  sermon  was  preached. 
Three  thousand  persons  heard  the  word, 
believed  it,  were  pierced  in  the  heart,  and, 
in  the  place  of  being  justified  by  faith  only, 
as  my  friend  has  it,  they  cried  out,  "Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?"  What 
do  they  mean  by  this?  What  shall  we  do 
for  what  ?  The  sum  of  the  inquiry  is, 
What  shall  we  do  for  justification  ?  Here 
were  the  inspired  Aj^ostles,  the  day  the 
Spirit  of  all  wisdom  and  inspiration  came 
from  heaven  to  guide  them  into  all  truth, 
called  and  sent  to  show  man  the  way  of 
justification.  They  tell  them  what  to  do, 
that  they  may  be  justified.  They  do  not 
tell  them  to  believe,  for  the  word  had  al- 
ready pierced  them  in  the  heart,  when  they 
heard  and  believed  it;  and  if  justification 
had  been  by  faith  only,  they  would  have 
been  justified  alread}^.  But  their  faith  did 
not  justify  them.  It  simply  made  them 
feel  their  need  of  justification.  It  simply 
induced  them  to  cry  out,  "Men  and  breth- 
ren, what  shall  we  do?"    jSTor  did  the  holy 


JITSTIFICATION.  81 

Apostle  inform  them  that  they  were  justi- 
fied by  faith  only,  but  commanded  them  to 
repent  and  be"  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  or  justification.     Here  are  two  things 
to  be  done,  besides  believing,  for  pardon,  or 
in  order  to  justification.     Ooe  is  to  repent, 
and  the  other  is  to  be  baptized.     Both  are 
to  be  done  for  the  same  purpose.     The  de- 
sign of  both  is  expressed  in  the  same  words. 
That  design  is  remission  of  sins,  or  justifi- 
cation.    In  the  place,  then,  of  preaching  to 
them  justification  by /aiV7^  only^  after  they 
believed,  he  commanded   them   to   repent 
and  be  baptized,  in  order   to   justification. 
The  inquirers  did  what   they   were    com- 
manded to  do,  and  were  justified  according 
to  the  promise  to  Abraham,    according   to 
the  will  of  God,  by  faith,  but  not  by  faith 
onJy^  but  believing  with   all   their   hearts, 
solemnly  repenting  of  their  sins,  and  being 
bajDtized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Sj)irit.  ]N'o  inge- 
nuity, no  argument  nor  learning  can  ever 
harmonize  this  case — this  plain  case  of  jus- 
tification— with   the   creed   of  my   friend. 
The  thing  is  impossible. 
"    YI.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  his  sixth    ar- 
gument, which  I  did  not  reach  in  my  first 
speech  before  my  time  expired,  based  "  on 
the  simple  fact,  that  we  are  said  to  be  justi- 
fied b}^   faith."     This   lacks   one   word   to 
make  it  contain  his  doctrine.     That  is  the 
precise  Avord  in    dispute — the    word    only. 
Every  passage,  and  the  record  of  every  case 

6 


82  DEBATE    ON 

of  conversion,  or  justification,  recorded  in 
the  Bible,  lacks  that  one  word.     That  Avord 
being  inserted,  makes  it  teach  a  false  doc- 
trine, a  doctrine  not  in  the  Eible  anyplace, 
and  that  cannot  be  sustained  by  the  Bible. 
To  try  to  make  some  show  of  argument  my 
friend  says,  "  It  is  said,  we  are  justified  by 
grace,  and  grace  being  the  only  originating 
cause,  we  may  say,  with  reference  to   that 
feature  of  the  work,  it  is  by  grace   only." 
But  what  propriety  or  reason  would  there 
be  in  thus  saying,  when  it  is  as  obvious  as 
anything  can  be,  that  the  blessed  God   is 
the  only  originating  cause?     Such  subtle- 
ties are  useful  to  mystify,  but  not  to  make 
clear  and  intelligible.     They  only  darken 
counsel.     Hence  the  clear   diction   of   the 
New  Testament  contains  not   the   expres- 
sions,   "justification   b}^  grace  only,"  "by 
works  only,"  or  "  by  faith  only,"  though  it 
has  justification  by  grace,  by  works  and  by 
faith.     The  same  is  true  in  reference  to  jus- 
tification   by    the    blood    of   Christ.      'No 
matter  if  it  is  the  procuring  cause,  the  holy 
writers  had  a  satisfactory  reason  for  never 
saying,  AYe  are  justified  by  his  blood   onli/, 
and  that  reason  should  be  sufficient  for  us. 
"While  they  did  say,    we   are  justified   by 
faith,  they  never  said   we   are  justified  by 
faith  only;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  declared 
that  justification  is  "  not  h^  faith  only.^'    The 
clear   and   obvious  solution  of  those  pas- 
sages,    ascribing     salvation     to     different 
things,  is  simply,  that   it  is   common   for 


JUSTIFICATION.  83 

writers  and  speakers,  wlicn  treatiug  upon 
a  point,  to  ascribe  a  work  to  that,  knowing 
the  hearers  or  readers  will  understand  that 
other  instrumentalities  are  to  have  their  ap- 
propriate places.  Hence,  if  the  speaker  is 
eiDeaking  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  he  speaks 
of  our  being  saved  by  his  blood,  with  the 
understanding  that  it  is  by  grace,  through 
faith,  repentance,  confession,  etc.,  and, 
therefore,  it  would  not  do  to  say,  salvation 
by  the  blood  of  Christ  only,  for  this  ex- 
cludes everything  else.  The  expression, 
'^  justified  by  faith,"  is  New  Testament  and 
proper.  I  have  use  for  that  expression  ; 
but  the  word  only  added,  is  an  interpola- 
tion— a  corruption — excluding  other  things 
that  God  has  included.  It  is  not  true,  that 
faith  is  the  only  receiving  cause.  This  is 
the  language  of  Ashdod.  It  is  unknown  to 
the  sacred  canon.  You  find  no  such  thing 
there  as  "faith  being  the  only  receiving 
cause — the  only  condition — and,  conse- 
quently, there  is  no  reason  for  saying  we 
are  saved  or  justified  by  faith  only.  It  can 
be  said,  and  truly  said,  that  we  are  "justi- 
fied by  faith,"  but  it  cannot  be  truly  said 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only. 

Justification  by  faith,  does  not  exclude 
justification  by  grace,  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  by  repentance,  by  confessing  Christ, 
etc.,  but  justification  by  faith  only,  does  ex- 
clude all  these — everything  else.  There  is 
no  use  for  this  word  only^  or  the  Apostles 
would  have  inserted  it.     The  work  of  my 


84  DEBATE   ON 

opponent,  on  this  point,  is  to  create  a  ne- 
cessity for  the  insertion  of  one  word  omit- 
ted by  the  Apostles.  His  church,  or  the 
Church  of  England,  before  his  church,  have 
supplied  what  they  appeared  to  think,  and 
what  Mr.  Merrill  seems  to  think,  a  defect 
in  the  apostolic  teaching,  viz.,  where  the 
Apostles  speak  of  justification  by  faith,  they 
have  added  the  word  only.  My  opponent's 
mission,  on  this  occasion,  is  to  vindicate 
this  addition  to,  and  corruption  of,  the  word 
of  God.  This  is  an  important  point,  and 
we  desire  him  to  make  it  very  plain.  Did 
the  Apostles  teach  the  Avhole  truth,  without 
adding  this  word  only?  If  they  did,  what 
is  the  use  of  this  word  ?  Where  is  the  need 
of  foisting  it  into  the  system  ?  The  gen- 
tleman desired  my  special  attention  here, 
and  I  wish  to  accommodate  him.  Will  he, 
then,  show  us  right  clearly  what  is  gained 
by  adding  to  the  word  of  God,  after  the 
words  "justified  by  faith,"  the  interpola- 
tion only?  Does  it  add  anj^thing  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  of  God?  If  it  does 
not,  it  is  useless,  and  the  labor  of  the  gen- 
tleman is  for  nothing.  If  it  does  add  any- 
thing to  the  meaning,  it  is  sinful  and  he 
is  sinning  m  maintaining  it. 

But  I  am  anxious  to  satisfy  the  worthy 
gentleman  on  this  point.  He  is  as  ex- 
clusive in  his  language,  as  if  the  word  alone 
had  been  inserted,  though  he  tried  to  make 
a  distinction  between  faith  only  and  faith 
alone.     He  says:  "Faith  does  not  merely 


JUSTIFICATION.  St 

contribute  to  the  justification  of  the  sinner, 
it  does  the  work — it  justifies."  We  are 
aware  that  God  justifies  the  believer  who 
comes  to  him  in  his  appointments,  but  that 
faith  does  the  work — tliat  it  justifies--in  any 
sense  only  as  a  means  through  which  Grod 
justifies,  is  wholly  out  of  the  question.  In 
the  expression,  "  The  like  figure  whcreun- 
to  even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us," 
we  find  the  words,  '■'•  Baptism  doth  also  now 
save  -ws."  Save^  here,  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  pardon,  or  justify.  Is  the  language  to 
be  forced  into  such  a  construction — such  a 
mere  literalism — as  to  make  it  say  baptism 
does  the  tvorJc  ?  it  justifies  f  The  same  license 
he  has  taken  in  the  case  of  faith,  would  do 
this;  but  no  man,  who  gives  language  a 
fair  and  consistent  construction,  does  this. 
It  is  Grod  that  saves  the  proper  subject,  or 
justifies  him  in  baptism — his  own  appoint- 
ment. It  is  God  that  justifies,  that  does  the 
work  ;  not  baptism,  the  act  of  the  creature  ; 
but  he  justifies — does  the  work  for  the 
creature,  when  he  comes  to  the  appoint- 
ments of  God,  with  a  true  heart  and  in  a 
proper  manner.  Strictly  and  literally,  it 
is  not  faith,  repentance,  confession,  calling 
on  the  Lord,  or  any  act  of  the  creature, 
*'  that  justifies — that  does  the  work  ;"  it 
is  literally  God  that  justifies — that  does  the 
%oork — and  no  act  of  the  creature.  When 
justification  is  ascribed  to  faith,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  confession  or  bap- 
tism, it  is  simply  ascribing  the  -svork  of  jus- 


m  DEBATE   O^ 

tificatioTi  to  them,  because  they  are  the  ap- 
pointed means  through  which  he  has  prom- 
ised to  justify.  Literally,  the  act  of  the 
creature  does  no  part  of  justifying  the  sin- 
ner, but  his  believing,  repenting,  confess- 
ing and  baptism  are  appointments  of  God, 
preparing  him  for  justification  or  pardon, 
and  through  which  he  comes  to  the  prom- 
ise that  God  will  justify  him  or  forgive  his 
sins.  The  work  of  justification,  in  the  pre- 
cise sense  admitted  by  my  friend  to  be  in- 
volved in  our  discussion,  is  forgiveness  of 
feins.  To  say,  literally,  that  faith  forgives 
sins — that  it  does  the  work,  is  simply  to 
say  that  the  act  of  a  depraved  creature — 
the  act  of  believing  alone  forgives  sins — it 
does  the  work.  This  is  simply  ridiculous. 
Faith  prepares  the  heart  and  repentance 
prepares  the  life  for  justification,  or  remis- 
sion, and  baptism  is  the  divine  apj)ointment 
where  the  Lord  has  promised  to  pardon 
or  justify  the  man  whose  heart  is  prepared 
by  faith  and  whose  life  is  prepared  by  re- 
pentance. 

The  gentleman  thinks  I  make  Paul  and 
James  contradict  each  other,  but  in  this  he 
is  simply  mistaken.  Paul  speaks  of  Abra- 
ham being  justified  by  faith,  but  did  not 
add  my  friend's  interpolation — onli/.  James 
speaks  of  Abraham  being  justified  by  works, 
but  does  not  add  the  interpolation  onl?/. 
But  James  shows  my  friend  how  works 
wrought  with  his  faith,  and  how  both  Paul 
and  James  could  be  correct.    He  was  justi- 


JUSTIFICATION.  87 

fied  by  faith,  but  not  by  faith  only ;  and 
by  works,  but  not  by  works  only  ;  but  by 
his  faith  and  works  together.  He  could 
not  have  been  justified  by  his  faith  without 
the  works,  nor  by  his  works  without  the 
faith.  Both  Paul  and  James  are  speaking 
of  the  same  justification,  and  neither  of 
them  adds  the  word  only.  That  word,  in 
that  place,  is  spurious.  The  allusion  to 
moral  and  ceremonial  is  directly  in  the  line 
of  mystification.  There  is  nothing  in  it  to 
throw  any  light  on  the  subject.  We  are 
not  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses,  neither 
its  faith  nor  its  deeds,  or  obedence,  but  we 
are  justified  by  the  gospel — through  its 
faith  and  obedience. 

YII.  The  gentleman's  seventh  argument 
is,  "  that  faith  removes  condemnation  from 
tlie  heart."  Eemoving  condemnation  from 
the  heart,  is  justification  or  pardon,  and 
this  argument,  though  numbered  seventh^ 
is  nothing  but  an  unsupported  assumption, 
or  begging  of  the  question,  in  taking  the 
precise  thing  to  be  proved  for  granted. 
That  a  man  who  does  not  believe  is  con- 
demned, no  man  here,  I  presume,  doubts ; 
but  it  is  equally  true,  that  the  man  who 
believes  and  does  not  confess  Christ,  as  the 
Scriptures  inform  us  some  Jews  did,  is  con- 
demned, or  he  that  believes  and  does  not 
repent,  is  condemned,  which  could  not  be 
the  case,  if  faith  only  would  justify  the 
sinner.  Unbelief  will  condemn  a  man,  but 
not  any  more  than  impenitance  or  any  oth- 


^  DEBATE   ON  , 

er  ^act  of  disobedience.  This  argument, 
then,  turns  out  to  he  no  argument  at  all, 
but  simply  asserting  his  doctrine  to  be  true 
in  different  words. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  THIRD  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

A  few  things  in  the  gentleman's  last 
speech,  demand  attention.  I  am  sorry  to 
find  him  evincing  a  complaining  spirit.  He 
charges  me  with  having  attempted  evasion, 
in  some  three  particulars.  The  first  point 
is,  that  I  so  managed  as  to  have  the  whole 
of  the  Ninth  Article  before  us  for  discus- 
sion !  In  his  former  speech,  he  said  I  ac- 
cepted his  pro^DOsition  to  debate  this  ques- 
tion, but  the  tnUh  is,  I  regarded  this  as 
outside  matter,  until  we  agreed  upon  the 
questions  concerning  baptism  ;  then  I  pro- 
posed to  affirm  the  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Ninth  Article,  and  Mr.  Franklin  accepted 
my  proposition.  Nothing  else  was  ever 
agreed  upon.  This  is  my  statement  of  the 
matter,  and  for  its  correctness,  I  appeal  to 
the  corresj^ondence.  If  he  could  have  gar- 
bled the  Article,  and  had  the  pleasure  of 
beating  down  a  man  of  straw,  he  would 
perhaps  have  been  better  satisfied.  He  is 
evidently  displeased  with  the  correspond- 
ence, and  I  predict  that  he  will  be  no  bet- 
ter satisfied  with  his  performance  in  the 
discussion.     But  I  have  been  guilty  of  a 


JUSTIFICATION.  %9^ 

terrible  evasion,  in  undertaking  to  main- 
tain the  whole  of  the  Article,  instead  of  a 
part  of  it !  My  friend  is  easily  alarmed. 
He  says  my  next  attempt  at  "  evasion  " 
was  in  speaking  of  justification  in  different 
senses  !  But  did  he  not  admit  that  we  are 
justified  in  several  different  senses?  He 
surely  did.  Does  he  now  wish  to  take 
back  that  admission  ?  If  so,  let  him  take 
hold  of  my  position,  and  show  that  the  dis- 
tinctions I  made  are  wrong.  If  he  can  find 
justification  in  the  proposition,  in  more 
than  one  sense,  he  can  then  object  with 
some  face  to  my  "  narrowing  the  proposi- 
tion down  to  justification  in  one  sense 
only."  I  am  here  to  discuss  the  doctrine 
contained  in  the  Article,  nor  will  I  be  turned 
aside  from  it  by  any  ill-humored  cavils 
about  "  evasion."  But  Mr.  F.  insists  that 
I  have  "evaded"  something  by  distinguish- 
ing between  faith  onli/  and  faith  alone.  He 
sees  clearly  that  my  interpretation  of  the 
Article,  presents  a  doctrine  so  clearly  scrip- 
tural that  he  cannot  gainsay  it,  and  unless 
he  quibbles  a  little  about  my  interpreta- 
tion, he  cannot  so  much  as  keep  up  the 
appearance  of  opposition.  He  says  faitli 
onlt/  is  faith  alone.  That  depends  on  cir- 
cumstances. When  we  say  a  certain  thing 
is  done  by  faith  only,  we  express  no  opin- 
ion as  to  whether  faith  is  alone  in  the  ab- 
stract, but  simply  convey  the  idea  that 
whatever  else  may  be  connected  with  faith, 
it  is  not  the  associates  of  faith  that  does 


^  DEBATE    ON 

the  work,  but  only  the  fiiith.  1  say,  again, 
it  is  not  the  abstract  meaning  of  the  word 
"  only,"  but  the  use  and  application  here 
made  of  it  that  I  am  seeking  after.  The 
two  words,  though  they  may  sometimes  be 
Used  interchangably,  have  different  uses. 
Will  my  friend  deny  this  ?  He  can  not. 
I  am  not  trying  to  foist  into  the  proposi- 
tion a  word  that  does  not  belong  there.  I 
simply  insist  on  a  correct  construction  of 
the  language ;  but  Mr.  Franklin  is  con- 
tending against  a  doctrine  which  is  not  in 
the  proposition,  which  I  do  not  hold,  and 
which  he  knows  is  believed  by  no  man  on 
the  earth  !  This  he  calls  debating  !  This, 
I  suppose,  he  calls  meeting  the  issue  fairly ! 
"Probably  he  was  not  awai*e  of  it,"  but 
Mr.  F.  has  virtually  given  up  the  contro- 
versy. He  says:  "I  have  no  controversy 
with  any  other  word  in  the  part  of  the 
article  which  I  proposed  to  assail.  I  object 
to  that  word,  because  it  excludes  every 
thing  else  but  faith.  IS'ow  if  it  should 
turn  out  that  the  word  does  not  exclude  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  blood  of  Jesus,  the 
reason  and  the  only  reason  why  he  objects 
to  it  will  disappear.  But  it  does  not  ex- 
clude the  grace  of  God  nor  the  blood  of 
Jesus.  If  it  did  I  would  no  more  defend 
it  than  I  would  take  poison.  Eut  no  fair 
criticism  can  make  it  exclude  these.  The 
Article  itself,  in  so  many  words,  ascribes 
all  the  merit  of  justification  to  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.     The  question  is  not  wheth- 


JTrS-riFICATION.  If 

er  the  word,  wJien  tal-en  out  of  its  connection, 
is  capable  of  the  construction  Mr.  F.  is 
trying  to  force  upon  it,  but  whether,  when 
taken  in  its  connection,  it  will  admit  the  in- 
terpretation for  which  I  contend.  Why 
will  the  gentleman  persist  in  refusing  to 
examine  the  use  and  application  of  the 
word  in  its  connection  ?  Why  does  he  not 
assail  the  doctrine  which  I  affirm  ?  "  Noth- 
ing is  more  unfavorable  to  a  man's  argu- 
ment than  a  flinching  from  the  real  issue." 
He  is  opposing  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  without  grace,  without  the  blood 
of  Jesus,  and  without  every  thing  else  ; 
but  he  knows  that  that  is  not  the  doctrine 
contained  in  the  proposition — he  knows 
that  no  person  ever  did,  or  ever  will  affirm 
such  an  idea ! 

That  the  worthy  gentleman  may  have 
no  excuse  for  his  course,  I  rej^eat  that  the 
Avord  "  only  "  does  not  exclude  the  grace 
of  G-od,  which  is  the  only  originating  cause 
of  justification ;  that  it  does  not  exclude 
the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  the  only  mer- 
itorious cause ;  but  it  does  exclude  the 
merit  of  works,  showing  that  faith  is  the 
only  receiving  cause.  Will  the  Article  bear 
this  interpretation  ?  Then  my  friend  must 
meet  the  issue  as  here  presented,  or  he 
must  fail.  The  gentleman  has  seen  fit  to 
occupy  a  part  of  his  time,  again,  in  dis- 
cussing the  fourth  proposition,  but  I  will 
give  his  remarks  a  passing  notice.  He 
quotes  the  ''  commission,"  and  infers  from 


9$  DEBATE   ON 

it  that  baptism  sustains  the  same  relation 
to  justification  that  faith  does  ;  but  his  ar- 
gument is  defective  in  that  it  assumes,  with- 
out proof,  that  the  word  saved  means  justi- 
fication. He  denied  that  tlie  word  saved^ 
in  the  commission,  refers  to  the  future  state. 
But  it  stands  opposed  to  the  word  damned^ 
in  the  same  passage,  and  in  contending 
against  Universalism,  the  gentleman  inva- 
riably applies  the  latter  term  to  the  future 
state.  The  salvation  does  relate  to  the  fu- 
ture state,  notwithstanding  my  friend's  de- 
nial ;  and  inasmuch  as  baptism  is  a  cove- 
nant rite,  and  implies  certain  covenant  en- 
gagements, the  passage  clearly  implies  the 
fulfillment  of  those  covenant  engagements 
on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  the  future 
salvation  is  promised.  Hence,  "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  he  saved  f^ 
but  he  that  believeth  is  not  condemned.  The 
one  looks  to  the  future  and  says  shall  he; 
the  other  relates  to  present  experience, 
and  employs  the  present  tense. 

Strangely  enough,  my  learned  opponent 
finds  a  condition  of  justification  in  the  Sa- 
vior's words,  "  Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall 
all  likewise  perish."  Why  is  it  never  said 
that  we  are  justified  by  repentance?  Can 
Mr.  Franklin  tell?  In  his  remarks  on  Acts 
ii.  38,  my  friend  was  exceedingly  unfortu- 
nate. Heassumed  that  repentance  iswholly 
separate  or  distinct  from  faith,  so  as  to  be 
distinct  condition ;  but  the  only  faith  that 
will  justify  the  soul,  arises  from  a  penitent 


JUSTIFICATION.  ^§ 

heart.  There  can  be  no  true  faith  without 
repentance.  He  assumed  that  the  persons 
addressed,  had  the  faith  required.  This  is  a 
grand  mistake.  He  assumed  that  the  word 
•'for"  (eis)  has  the  meaning,  in  that  place, 
of  m  order  to.  This  is  gratuitous.  He  also 
confounded  the  means  of  justification,  with 
the  condition.  Eepentance  and  baptism, 
were  well  calculated  to  promote  faith,  to 
lead  those  inquiring  souls  to  trust  in  Christ 
alone  for  salvation,  and  hence  the  Apostle 
urged  them  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  for 
the  remission  of  sins.  This  could  all  be, 
and  yet  neither  the  repentance  nor  the  bap- 
tism fill  the  office  of  faith.  "Faith  only," 
neither  excludes  the  antecedent  prepara- 
tion of  heart,  nor  its  own  fruits;  but  while 
faith  implies  repentance  and  obedience, 
neither  repentance  nor  obedience  can  jus- 
tify— neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is  im- 
puted to  us  for  righteousness.  If  repent- 
ance and  baptism  sustain  the  same  relation 
to  justification  that  faith  does,  will  the  gen- 
tleman tell  us  why  it  is  that  justification  is 
invariably  ascribed  to  faith,  but  is  never 
ascribed  either  to  repentance  or  baptism? 
He  can  not.  Repentance  has  its  place  and 
office  in  the  great  process  of  salvation,  but 
it  does  not  justify  ;  so  with  baptism,  but  it 
is  never  said  to  justify:  that  office  is  only 
filled  by  faith-- genuine,  living  faith— not 
the  mere  assent  of  the  mind,  but  the  faith 
of  the  heart. 

The  gentleman  has  a  very  easy  method 


^  I):^^4T]B   ON 

of  disposing  of  points  which  he  cannot 
meet.  He  very  blandly  pronounces  them 
"  metaphysical,"  "  assumptions,"  "  mystifi- 
cations," etc.  ]N"ow  this  is  all  appreciated. 
Every  intelligent  hearer  will  place  the  right 
estimate  upon  it.  It  is  an  attempt  to  throw 
dust  to  cover  his  retreat. 

He  pretends  to  answer  my  sixth  argu- 
ment. But  how  does  he  do  it  ?  He  quotes 
part  of  a  sentence,  and  then  insists  that  it  is 
not  the  precise  language  of  Scripture !  then 
makes  a  nice  distinction  by  showing  that, 
whereas  I  said  the  grace  of  God  was  the 
only  originating  cause,  he  has  discovered 
"  that  the  blessed  Grod  is  the  only  origina- 
ting cause?"  Why  does  he  indulge  in  such 
"  metaphysics  ?"  Simply  because  he  feels 
conscious  that  when  I  show  plainly  that,  as 
it  respects  one  feature  of  the  work,  it  is 
only  of  grace,  and  as  it  res^^ects  another 
feature  of  the  work,  it  is  only  by  the  blood 
of  Jesus,  and  as  it  respects  the  third  feature 
of  the  work,  the  Bible  never  ascribes  it  to 
repentance,  to  confession  or  to  baptism,  but 
to  faith,  and  only  to  faith,  he  cannot  dispute 
it.  When  I  show  that  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  Article,  he  feels  deeply  conscious 
that  he  must  pervert  it,  and  make  it  appear 
to  mean  something  else,  or  be  compelled  to 
cease  his  oj)position  to  it.  He  tells  us  that, 
when  the  sacred  writers  ascribe  justifica- 
tion to  faith,  it  is  implied  that  other  instru- 
mentalities are  to  have  their  apj)ropriate 
places.    Just  so  say  I.     But  it  is   not  the 


JUSTIFICATION.  §» 

place  of  repentance  to  justify ;  it  is  not  fop 
Baptism  to  justif}^;  but  faith  does  justify.  I 
insist  upon  it  that  repentance,  confession 
and  baptism  shall  have  their  appropriate 
places  ;  but  my  friend  is  anxious  to  take 
them  out  of  their  appropriate  places,  and 
put  them  where  the  Bible  puts  faith,  and 
never  puts  anything  else.  By  the  way,  has 
he  attempted  to  show  what  else  beside  faith 
is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness?  He 
has  not,  and  never  will. 

He  quotes  the  language,  "  The  like 
figure  whereunto  even  baj^tism  doth  also 
now  save  us  ;"  but  does  he  not  see,  from  the 
structure  of  the  passage,  that  baptism  is 
the  "figure"  or  emblem  of  the  salvation 
which  is  by  the  "  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ?"  Does  he  not  know  that  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  Cornelius  and  those  who  were  with 
him  when  Peter  first  preached  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, were  all  justified  before  they  were 
commanded  to  be  baptized  ?  Surely  he 
cannot  have  overlooked  all  this.  1  invite 
the  attention  of  the  gentleman  to  this  fact. 
]S"o  man  ever  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  ac- 
cording to  the  I^ew  Testament  promise, 
while  in  a  state  of  condemation.  But  the 
persons  above-mentioned  received  the  Holy 
Spirit  before  they  were  baptized,  and  were 
commanded  to  be  baptized  because  they 
had  received  the  Spirit.  How  will  he  re- 
concile this  fact  with  his  fourth  proposition, 
which  he  is  now  debating?  Can  he  insist, 
in  the  face  of  it,  that  baptism  is  a  condition 


^  DEBATE  ON 

of  justification  ?  Let  him  attempt  to  dodge 
this  hy  pretending  to  find  a  dift'erence  be- 
tween the  miracle-working  power  of  the 
Spirit,  and  its  sanctifying  and  comforting 
presence,  and  I  promise  you  that  he  shall 
Utterly  fail. 

He  very  prudently  passes  my  seventh  ar- 
gument, by  calling  it  assumption,  begging 
the  question,  asserting  the  point  in  dispute 
in  other  words,  etc. ;  but  is  it  possible  that 
he  forgets  that  my  "  assertion"  was  based 
directly  upon  a  plain  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,"  which  he  has  not  reconciled  with 
his  notions,  and  never  can? 

YIII.  My  eighth  argument  is,  that  every 
true  believer  is  in  possession  of  eternal  life. 
*'  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  ever- 
lasting life;"  John  iii.  36.  "  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  he  that  heareth  my  word, 
and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath 
everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into 
condemnation  ;  but  is  passed  from  death 
unto  life;"  John  v.  24.  What  is  it  to  have 
eternal  life?  My  friend  will  tell  you  it  is 
to  have  it  in  promise  or  prospect.  It  means 
this,  and  more' than  this.  AYe  do  not  on 
earth  possess  it  in  the  highest  sense— no 
one  pretends  this ;  but  we  do  possess  it  in 
an  important,  positive  sense.  Life  follows 
birth,  and  when  we  are  born  again,  we  ob- 
tain a  new  life.  This  life  is  a  positive  prin- 
ciple. We  have  it  in  possession.  The  soul 
is  quickened  and  raised  up  from  a  death  in 
sin  to   a  life  of  holiness.     "  But  is  passed 


JUSTinCATION.  97 

from  death  unto  life."  Mark  this  expres- 
Bt6tti,''  It  points  to  a  present  experience — a 
p'o^itive  resuscitating  influence  upon  the 
soul.  The  Scriptures  never  speak  of  spir- 
itual life,  as  though  the  life  enjoyed  by 
faith  were  different  from  that  promised 
hereafter.  They  always  call  it  eternal  life. 
To  cut  off  all  ground  for  caviling,  I  refer 
to  I.  John  V.  11-12  :  "And  this  is  the  record, 
that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life ;  and 
this  life  is  in  his  Son.  He  that  hath  the  Son, 
hath  life ;  and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of 
God,  hath  not  life."  Christ  dwells  in  the 
heart  by  faith  ;  there  is,  therefore,  no  such 
thing  as  a  genuine  believer  living  for  a  sin- 
gle hour,  after  becoming  a  believer,  under 
condemnation,  or  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
death.  Mr.  F.  claims  that  they  do  remain 
in  death  and  condemnation  until  they  are 
immersed.  His  theory  thus  flatly  contra- 
dicts the  Bible.  According  to  his  theology, 
CMirist  does  not  dwell  in  the  heart  by  faith, 
but  b}'  baptism.  But  my  friend  can  never 
make  it  appear  that  "hath"  means  "will 
have,"  or  "may  have,"  or  "expects  to 
have;"  he  can  never  show  that  a  believer 
remains  in  death  for  a  single  moment  after 
believing.  He  may  call  this  argument 
nothing  but  assumption,  mystification-,  or 
begging  the  question  ;  but  he  will  never 
meet  the  issue  it  presents. 

I  will  conclude  this  speech  by  calling 
your  attention,  once  more,  to  Paul  arid 
James.     My    friend   deifies   making  them 


98  DEBATE   ON 

contradict  each  other.  Paul  teaches  thai 
Abraham  was  justified  when  he  believed 
God  and  his  faith  was  counted  for  right- 
eousness. James  says  Abraham  was  justi- 
fied by  works  when  he  offered  Isaac  upon 
the  altar.  Mr.  Franklin  says  he  was  not 
justified  until  the  time  mentioned  by  James. 
If  he  was  not,  Jie  was  not  justified  at  the 
time  his  faith  was  counted  for 'righteous- 
ness, which  was  before  Isaac  was  born. 
But  Abraham  was  a  pious,  upright,  justified 
man,  long  before  he  offered  Isaac  upon  the 
altar.  There  is  no  possible  way  to  under- 
stand this  subject,  without  admitting  two 
distinct  justifications — one  by  faith  before 
Isaac  was  born,  and  the  other  by  works 
when  Isaac  was  offered  upon  the  altar, 
This  will  reconcile  the  apparent  discrep- 
ancy between  St.  Paul  and  St.  James,  and 
at  the  same  time  show  that  James  does  not 
contradict  the  proposition  before  us.  James 
speaks  of  the  justification  of  a  righteous 
man,  who  had  long  enjoyed  the  favor  of 
God,  by  a  special  manifestation  of  divine 
approval ;  but  Paul  and  the  Discipline 
speak  of  the  act  of  God's  grace  by  which  a 
guilty  sinner  is  pardoned  and  accepted 
through  the  merit  of  Christ. 

But  the  gentleman  distinguishes  between 
law  works  and  gosj^el  works.  His  distinc- 
tion is  gratuitous.  What  does  he  mean  by 
gospel  works  ?  If  he  mean  any  thing  per- 
tinent to  the  subject  in  hand,  he  must  refer 
to  the  works  which  he  insists  upon  as  con- 


J 


JUSTIFICATION.  99 

ditions  of  justification.  These  are  repent- 
ance, confession  and  baptism.  But  does 
James  speak  of  these  ?  He  docs  not!  I  dis- 
pute.Mr.  Franklin's  position  here,  and  call 
iipoa  ,him  for  the  jDroof.  Let  him  define 
his  gospel  works,  and  show  where  James 
mentions  them  as  conditions  of  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  dinner,  and  he  will  then  do 
something  worthy  his  position.  Until  he 
4oes  this,  his  repetitions  are  vain. 
.  .%.  put  to  the  worthy  gentleman  a  plain 
question  or  two,  which  I  hope  he  will  an- 
swer. Was  Abraham  justified  and  accepted 
as  righteous,  before  Isaac  was  born  ?  Was 
any  thing  but  faith  accounted  to  him  for 
righteousness  ?  Are  we  not  justified  just 
as  Abraham  was  ?  I  admit  that  Christians 
must  be  justified  by  works,  as  James 
teaches,  but  we  are  debating  about  tiie  jus- 
tification of  sinners  ;  and  this,  I  maintain, 
with  Paul,  was  by  faith,  and  not  of  works, 
lest  any  man  should  boast.  Mr.  F.  will 
not  answer  whether  Paul  speaks  of  the 
moral  or  ceremonial  law  this:  is  all  "mys- 
tification !"  But  he  can  make  distinctions 
where  there  is  no  difference,  without  any 
fear   of  mystifying. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  THIRD  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  think  if  you  would  allow  me  the  same 
liberty  with  Paine's  Age  of  Reason,  taken 
by  Mr.  M.  with  the  Article  in   dispute,   I 


100  DEBATE   ON 

could  make  a  Christian  of  him,  and  recon- 
cile his  infidel  book  with  the  Bible.  The 
liberty  I  allude  to,  is  simply  to  explain  that 
the  Article  does  not  mean  what  it  says — - 
that,  though  it  contains  the  words  "justifi- 
cation by  i'nith.  orili/,''  it  does  not  mean  jus- 
tification by  faith  alone,  faith  by  itself,  by 
faith  singly,  or  without  anything  else.  Just 
allow  me  the  privilege  of  maintaining  that 
Paine  did  not  mean  what  he  said,  when  he 
pronounced  religion  an  imposition,  and  Je- 
sus an  impostor,  but  that  he  meant  that  re- 
ligion is  divine,  and  Jesus  the  Son  of  God, 
and  it  places  him  in  a  very  different  atti- 
tude. But  no  man  can  show  that  he  meant 
any  thing  else  than  what  he  said,  nor  can 
any  man  show  that  the  Discipline  means 
any  thing  else  only  precisely  what  it  says 
— that  "justification  by  faith  only  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of 
comfort."  What  does  the  word  only  mean 
in  the  Discipline,  or  in  the  estimation  of 
the  General  Conference.  It  occurs  to  me 
that  I  can  find  this  same  word,  "  only,"  in 
another  place  in  the  Discij?line,  and  it  may 
be  of  interest  to  this  audience  to  know  how 
Mr.  M.,  and  his  brethren  in  the  ministry, 
interpret  it.  Mr.  Merrill  denies  that  onl^ 
means  alone,  or  that  justification  by  faith 
only  means  justification  by  faith  alone,  or  by 
faith  without  any  thing  else.  Det  toe  refer 
him,  and  his  brethren  in  the  ministry,  to 
another  passage  in  the  Discipline,  where 
the  word  only  is  found,  and  frequently  ut- 


JUSTIFICATION.  101 

tered  by  the  preachers,  and  see  if  it  does 
not  mean  alone,  or  without  any  thing  else. 
If  Mr.  M.  was  married  according  to  the 
Discipline,  when  he  had  his  lady  by  the 
hand,  the  preacher  who  married  him  made 
him  promise  that,  forsaking  all  others,  he 
would  "  keep  o?i/y  unto  her;"  Dis.  p.  151. 
"What  does  the  word  only  mean  here  ?  Does 
it  not  exclude  every  other  person? 

But  now,  to  come  at  the  matter  at  once, 
I  make  a  reasonable  request  of  Mr.  Merrill. 
He  says  the  word  onli/,  in  the  proposition, 
does  not  mean  alone.  Then  I  ask  him 
what  that  word  does  mean.  I  ask  him  not 
what  the  Article  means ;  but,  as  he  has  ad- 
mitted that  the  word  071I1/  is  the  word  the 
controversy  is  about,  I  ask  him  to  define 
what  that  word  means  in  the  Article. 
What  office  does  it  perform  in  the  sen- 
tence? If  he  says  it  does  not  exclude  any 
thing  else  besides  faith,  then  tell  us  pre- 
cisely what  it  means,  or  what  its  office  is  ; 
and  let  him  say,  too,  at  the  same  time, 
whether  he  has  not  given  up  the  contro- 
versy. If  he  does  not  understand  the  word 
only  to  exclude  icorks,  why  does  he  start  out 
with  an  argument  against  justification  by 
works  ?  Has  he  not  shown  clearly  that  he 
understands  the  word  only  to  exclude 
works?  Certainly  he  has,  and  the  precise 
interpretation  that  he  gives  that  word,  to 
make  it  exclude  works,  makes  it  exclude 
every  thing  else.  From  this  there  is  no  es- 
cape.    The  very  circumstance,   then,  that 


l©2f  DEBARS  rm 

he  has  attempted  to  evade  the  clear  and  ob- 
vious meaning  of  the  main  term  in  our 
proposition,  to  use  his  style,  proclaims  his 
consciousness  that  his  Article  cannot  be 
sustained.  I  expected  to  disprove  his 
doctrine,  but  I  did  not  expect  him  thus 
virtually  to  shrink  from  it,  and  show  that 
he  knew  that  he  could  not  defend  it !  I  have 
not  seen  a  man  so  utterly  confused  and  con- 
founded as  he  was  in  the  speech  just  deliv- 
ered, for  a  long  time.  What  reply  did  he 
make  to  my  refutation  of  his  miserable 
farce  of  faith  doing  the  work — faith  justify- 
ing? He  says  faith  does  the  work — il  jus- 
tifies I  Faith  is  the  act  of  the  creature— 
the  act  of  a  depraved  creature — it  (the  act 
of  a  depraved  creature^  does  the  work — itjnsti- 
Jles!  What  disposition  has  he  made  of  this 
absurd  position  ?  IsTone  in  the  world  ;  nor 
can  he  or  any  other  man.  Here  he  is  in 
the  absurdity  of  saying  that  faith,  the  act 
of  the  creature — the  act  of  a  depraved 
creature,  and  that  act  on?^— does  the  work 
— it  justifies  or  pardons  !  What  answer  has 
he  made  to  this?  None  in  the  world.  How 
does  he  reconcile  this  with  his  argument 
drawn  from  depravity  ?  His  argument  is, 
that  man  is  depraved  and,  therefore,  can 
do  nothing  meritorious,  or  that  can  merit 
justification;  but  this  depraved  creature 
can  believe.  Believing  is  an  act  of  the 
creature,  of  a  depraved  creature — a  work 
performed  by  the  creature,  that  justifies, 
pardons  or  does  the  work — this  act  of  the 


JUSTIFICATION.  103 

depraved  creature  only  justifies — does  the 
work ! ! 

The  -worthy  gentleman  asks  if  I  wish  to 
take  back  ttlj  admission,  that  men  are  jus- 
tified in  different  senses.  No,  sir,  I  do  not 
wish  to  take  it  back,  nor  any  thing  else  that 
I  have  said,  but  I  wish  to  know  by  what 
rule  of  logic,  or  what  kind  of  reasoning, 
when  we  are  discussing  the  grand  subject 
of  justification,  as  asserted  in  the  Article  in 
dispute,  he  should  be  permitted  to  escape 
the  whole  question  of  justification  except  in 
one  sense  only  ?  The  Discipline  does  not 
say  that  we  are  justified  in  one  sense  by 
faith  only^  or  that  the  justification  of  the 
sinner  is  by  faith  only^  but  "  Wherefore,  that 
we  are  justified  by  faith  only  is  a  most 
wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  com- 
fort." Who  is  it  speaking  of?  "  V\^e,"  who 
are  justified  by  faith  only?  We  Methodists, 
of  course.  It  does  not  say  that  we  have 
been,  or  were,  justified,  but  that  loe  are  jus- 
tified by  faith  only.  I  complain  not  of  him 
for  saying  that  men  are  justified  in  differ-' 
ent  senses,  for  this  is  new  to  no  one  here ; 
but  I  blame  him  for  trying  to  evade  the 
discussion  of  justification  except  in  one 
sense,  when  he  has  no  reason  for  it.  He 
has  not  given  the  first  reason  for  asserting 
that  the  Article  is  speaking  of  justification 
in  one  sense,  and  no  more,  and  then  as- 
suming that  the  one  sens^  is  tlie  justifica- 
tion or  pardon  of  the  sinner.  But  I  have 
dealt  with  men  in  his  position  too  frequent- 


104  DEBATE   ON 

ly  not  to  iinderstand  their  complaint,  and 
the  treatment  necessary.  I  am  succeeding 
well  with  him,  and  hope  I  shall  convert 
him.  I  shall,  therefore,  proceed  to  examine 
his  case,  and  see  how  far  he  has  progressed 
towards  conversion.  He  has  divided  justifi- 
cation into  four  classes.  1st,  "Infantile 
justification."  He  says,  we  have  no  con- 
troversy respecting  this.  He  grants  that 
"  infantile  justification  "  is  not  by  faith 
only.  This  is  one  fourth  converted.  2nd, 
"It  is  the  justification  of  the  sinner  in  the 
sense  of  pardon."  This  he  considers  the 
point  in  dispute.  3rd,  "The  justification 
of  the  righteous  by  obedience,  in  the  sense 
of  approval."  This  justification  is  by  obe- 
dience, or  by  works,  he  admits,  and,  there- 
fore, yields  the  point  that  justification  in 
this  sense  is  not  by  faith  only.  This  you 
may  count  another  fourth  converted.  4th, 
The  transactions  in  the  judgment.  This 
justification,  in  the  last  judgment,  he  ad- 
mits is  not  by  faith  only.  This  I  claim  as 
another  fourth,  or  making  him  three 
fourths  converted;  or,  in  other  words,  justi- 
fication in  three  senses,  out  of  the  only  four 
senses  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  J^Tew  Testa- 
ment, he  admits  is  not  by  faith  only.  This 
far  he  is  now  right,  if  we  can  only  keep 
him  so. 

ISTow,  I  wish  it  distinctly  understood, 
that  I  do  not  believe  the  Discipline  only 
means  justification  in  one  sense,  or  in  the 
sense    of  pardon   only.     But,    as   Mr.   M. 


JUSTIFICATION.  105 

shrinks,  yields  the  point  and  admits  that 
infant  justification,  the  justification  of  the 
rigiitcous  and  the  justification  in  the  last 
judgment,  or  justification  in  these  three 
senses  is  not  hy  faith  only^  we  must  excuse 
him  from  any  further  debate  on  these 
points.  To  state  the  matter  more  clearly, 
he  does  not  believe  that  infants  are  justified 
by  faith  only^  or,  which  he  thinks  the 
same,  only  for  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ !  He  does  not  believe  that  the 
righteous  are  justified  by  faith  only,  or, 
which  he  thinks  the  same,  only  for  the 
merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  by 
works.  He  does  not  think  that  the  justifi- 
cation in  the  judgment  will  be  by  faith 
only^  or,  which  he  thinks  the  same,  only  for 
the  merits  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus 
Christ.  But  he  does  believe  that  the  sin- 
ner is  justified  by  faith  only.  Where  does 
he  go  to  find  his  first  example  of  the  justi- 
fication of  a  sinner  ?  He  goes  to  Abraham, 
a  righteous  man,  to  whom  God  made  the 
promise  containing  a  blessing  for  all  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  and  who  believed  that 
promise  that  G-od  made  to  him  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  This  is 
his  case  of  the  justification  of  a  sinner. 
Who  was  this  sinner?  Abraham^  who  had 
been  a  righteous  man  many  long  years 
before  this,  and  who  had  long  before  this 
obeyed  the  voice  of  the  Lord.  He  only, 
needs  a  few  assumptions  here  to  make  out 
the  case.     1st,  That  you  believe  him,  that 


106  DEBATE   OW 

Abrahatn  was  a  sinner.  2nd,  That  he  was 
pardoned,  or  justified  from  his  sins,  and 
not  in  the  other  sense  of  approval,  which 
he  admits  not  to  be  by  faith  only.  3rd,  That 
Abraham  was  justified  tioice — once  when  ho 
believed,  and  once  when  he  oifered  Isaac. 
4th,  That  the  Article  in  dispute,  means  the 
former  justification  and  not  the  latter.  5th, 
That  it  was  not  by  faith,  but  by  faith  only, 
he  was  justified.  But  the  truth  in  the  case 
is,  that  Abraham  was  a  righteous  man, 
and  not  a  sinner,  when  God  made  the  prom- 
ise to  him,  and  there  is  but  the  one  justifi- 
cation, through  faith  in  the  promise,  and 
his  works,  which  wrought  with  his  faith 
when  he  offered  Isaac.  The  only  argu- 
ment I  need  in  the  premise,  completely  to 
take  this  case  out  of  his  hands,  is  that  he 
admits  that  the  righteous  are  justified  by 
works,  as  James  says,  and  not  by  faith 
only ;  and  that  Abraham  was  a  righteous 
man  when  the  Lord  made  the  promise  to 
him,  and  his  justification  was  not  the  justi- 
fication of  a  sinner,  or  it  was  not  pardon. 
liet  the  worthy  gentleman  keep  cool  and 
meet  this  difficulty. 

YIII.  The  gentleman's  eighth  argument 
is,  that  every  believer  is  in  possession  of 
eternal  life.  I  have  heard  IJniversalists 
maintain  that  men  have  eternal  life  in  j^os 
session  now,  and  I  have  heard  them  make 
the  same  criticism  on  the  words  "  hath 
eternal  life,"  and  "  is  passed  from  death 
nnto  life ;"  but  it  never  passed,   with  me, 


JUSTIFICATION.  107^ 

for  more  than  a  second  or  third  rate  soph- 
istry. What  does  such  miserable  sophistry 
amount  to,  when  we  hear  the  Lord  say 
that  he  will  say  to  the  riorhteous,  in  the 
day  of  judgment,  these  shall  go  away  "into 
life  eternal !"  Vill  Mr.  M.  then  say, 
"  Master,  we  had  eternal  life  in  j^^^^f^^^'^^^ 
when  we  believed  ;  and  how  is  it  that  you 
now  promise  us  to  go  into  that  which  we 
already  have  ?"  He  felt  conscious  that 
this  was  a  sophistry  when  he  offered  it, 
and  informed  you  that  I  will  tell  you  that 
"  they  have  the  promise  in  prospect."  But 
in  this  he  is  mistaken.  I  do  not  tell  you 
that  you  have  the  promise  in  prospect. 
You  have  the  pro7?iis<?  in  possession,  but  eter- 
n<tl  life  in  prospect.  He  knew  that  this  was 
unsound,  and  added,  "  We  do  not,  on  earth, 
possess  it  in  the  highest  sense."  His  is  a 
very  different  gospel  from  that  of  Paul. 
Paul  never  taught  the  sinner  that  he  should 
have  eternal  life  by  faith  only ;  but  he 
taught  the  believers  at  Eome,  that  "  to 
them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well- 
doing, seek  for  glory  and  honor  and  im- 
mortality, eternal  life  "  should  be  given. 
Had  Mr.  M.  been  there,  he  would  have 
replied,  "  We  already  possess  eternal  life." 
The  Lord  says,  "  These  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous 
into  life  eternal^  Had  Mr.  M.  been  present, 
he  would  have  said,  "  Master,  we  already 
possess  eternal  life."  According,  not  to  my 
theology,  but  that  of  the  New  Testament, 


108  DEBATE   ON 

Christ  does  dwell  in  the  heart  by  faith, 
man  has  the  hope  of  eternal  life  by  faith, 
eDJoys  the  prospect  of  eternal  life  in  the 
world  to  come  by  f\iith,  but  does  not  have 
eternal  life  in  actual  possession  now,  as 
-every  man  here  must  be  as  conscious  as 
that  he  is  living.  But  what  does  this  little 
speculation  have  to  do  with  the  question  ? 
How  does  he  make  an  argument  out  of  it  ? 
Is  justification  eternal  life?  Did  those 
Jews  who  believed  on  Jesus,  but  would  not 
confess  him,  have  eternal  life  ?  They  had 
faith  only^  but  did  not  confess  Jesus,  were 
not  justified  and  did  not  have  eternal  life 
even  prospectively.  This  is  an  unequivocal 
proof  that  his  doctrine,  of  justification  by 
faith  only,  is  not  true.  The  holy  writer 
himself  speaks  of  jDcrsons  who  believed,  but 
did  not  confess,  and  who  evidently  were 
not  justified.  Indeed,  he  has  not  yet  had 
the  nerve  to  say  that  any  person  can  be 
justified  with  all  faith  and  without  confes- 
sion, or  without  repentance.  Paul  puts 
an  eternal  veto  upon  this  faith  only  doc- 
trine. He  says,  "  Though  I  have  all  faith, 
60  that  I  coald  remove  mountains,  and 
have  not  charity,  I  am  nothing."'  This  is 
the  best  definition  of  the  man  with  faith 
only^  I  have  ever  found.  The  holy  Apostle 
says  "  he  is  nothing."  Mr.  M.  ftices  the 
Apostle,  and  maintains  that  he  is  justified, 
and  has,  in  actual  possession,  eternal  life. 

Mr.  M.  has  accused  me  of  getting  in  ad- 
vance, to  our  fourth  proposition.     But  he 


JUSTIFICATION.  109 

is  mistaken  about  this.  He  has  given  up 
that  justification,  in  every  sense  except 
one,  is  not  by  faith  only,  and  that  one  is 
justification  in  the  conversion  of  the  sinner. 
When  I  follow  him,  then,  and  show  that 
he  is  wrong  even  there — that  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  sinner  is  not  by  faith  only,  he 
cries  out,  lustily,  that  I  am  on  the  fourth 
proposition  !  Yet,  he  invites  my  attention 
to  the  fact,  that  "  'No  man  ever  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment promise,  while  in  a  state  of  condem- 
nation." But  does  not  Paul  assert,  in  the 
expression,  that  "though  I  have  all  faith, 
so  that  I  could  remove  mountains,  and  have 
not  charity,  I  am  nothing,"  that  a  man 
may  have  the  miraculous  gift  of  faith  and 
power,  so  that  he  could  work  miracles,  yet, 
because  he  does  not  have  something  be- 
sides "  faith  o??7y,"  he  is  nothing?  Here  is 
a  man  with  faith — nay,  more,  "  all  faith  " — 
the  spiritual  and  miraculous  gift  of  faith, 
so  that  he  can  remove  mountains,  and  at 
the  same  time  nothing,  because  he  has  not 
charity,  or  something  more  than  faith. 
Can  a  man  be  justified  by  faith  only,  and 
at  the  same  time  nothing  f  Here  is  a  clear 
and  unequivocal  evidence  that  supernatu- 
ral spiritual  gifts  are  no  evidence  of  justi- 
fication, for  Paul  admits  that  a  man  may 
have  them,  in  a  high  degree,  and  be  noth- 
ing, and  certainly  not  justified.  I  shall 
not  '^pretend  to  find  "  a  difi^erence  between 
miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  and  the  re- 


110  PEBATE  ON 

oeiving  of  the  Spirit,  common  to  all  Chris- 
tians, but,  in  the  proper  place,  shall  actual- 
ly find  it,  without  an  "  attempt  to  dodge," 
and  without  being  alarmed  at  the  gentle 
man's  promise  that  I  shall  fail. 

Mr.  M.  says :  "  Can  he  insist  that  bap-^ 
tism  is  a  condition  of  justification."  Have 
I  not  ^hown  that  Jesus,  in  the  precise  same* 
word«,  makes  both  faith  and  baptism  con-r 
ditions  of  justification?  "He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  and 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
How  does  he  attempt  to  escape  my  argu- 
ment from  this  expression  ?  "  He  informa 
you  that,  in  contending  with  Universalists, 
I  make  the  words  '  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned,'  refer  to  the  future." 
Suppose  I  do !  Is  not  he  that  believeth 
not  condemned  already,  because  he  be- 
lieves not,  as  well  as  certain  that  he  shall 
be  condemned  in  the  future?  And  when 
the  Lord  says,  "He  that  believeth  and  i& 
baptized,  shall  be  saved,"  does  it  not  have 
direct  reference  to  present  justification,  no 
matter  what  bearing  it  may  have  on  the 
future  ?  My  friend  can  blow  hot  and  cold 
with  the  same  breath.  In  one  moment,  he 
that  believeth  hath  eternal  life,  and  is 
passed  from  death  unto  life,  and  faith  does 
the  work — it  justifies!  Then,  when  I  find 
faith  and  baptism  in  one  sentence,  joined 
together  for  the  same  purpose,  or  in  order 
to  the  same  object,  he  finds  no  justification 
in  the  passage  !     It  must  rela^te  exclu.sively 


JUSTIFICATION.  lH 

to  salvation  in  heaven  !  Even  faith,  now,  ia 
not  for  justification,  but  simply  for  the 
eternal  salvation  !  But  the  Lord  here,  in 
the  great  commission,  is  setting  forth  the 
terms  of  justification,  or  salvation.  I  am  ful- 
ly aware  that  the  ultimate  object,  not  only  of 
faith  and  baptism,  but  every  act  of  obedience, 
is  the  final  salvation.  But  the  Lord  was  not 
looking  immediately  to  either  the  final  sal- 
vation or  condemnation,  but  to  the  present 
salvation,  pardon  or  justification,  which  he 
promised,  not  upon  the  condition  of  Mr. 
M.'s  gospel  of  "  faith  o?*Zy,"  but  the  condi- 
tions of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
Eemember  that  faith  does  not  lose  its  ob- 
ject here ;  it  is  in  order  to,  or  for,  justifica- 
tion, salvation  or  j)ardon.  Baptism  is  for 
the  same  purpose,  or  has  the  same  object, 
set  forth  in  precisely  the  same  words. 
Here,  then,  Mr.  M.  is  my  prisoner.  He 
declares  faith  to  be  for  justification.  In 
this  he  is  right,  and  the  Lord  puts  baptism 
in  with  it,  for  justification,  in  the  same, 
sentence  and  in  the  same  words.  He  must 
now  turn  round  and  maintain  that  faith 
is  not  for  justification,  as  found  in  the  com- 
mission, or  lose  his  argument.  What 
does  the  Lord  require  the  sinner  to  believe 
for?  That  he  may  be  justified.  In  the 
same  commission,  in  the  same  sentence 
and  in  the  identical  same  words,  he  makes 
baptism  for  justification.  The  justification 
is   not  by  faith  only,  but  he  that  "  believeth 


112  DEBATE    ON'^ 

and  is  haptized,  shall  be  saved,"  or  justified. 
Suppose  he  persists  in  saying  that  "  saved," 
here,  means  salvation  in  heaven  !  How 
does  it  help  him  ?  What  becomes  of  his 
argument  of  eternal  life?  He  makes  the 
enjoyment  of  eternal  lifeP equivalent  to  jus- 
tification. Well,  it  is  certain  that  those 
saved  in  heaven  shall  enjoy  eternal  life. 
Here,  then,  we  find  his  justification  upon 
his  own  principle,  upon  the  conditions 
that  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
b^  saved.  Such  is  his  success  in  proving 
justification  by  faith  only. 

I  have  shown  him  that  Peter,  when  he 
first  commenced  preaching  justification  ac- 
cording to  the  promise  of  God,  that  he 
would  "justify  the  heathen  through  faith," 
when  the  people  inquired  of  him,  "  Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?"  com- 
manded them  to  "  repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  or  justifi- 
cation. Here  he  incorporates  both  repent- 
ance and  baptism  with  faith,  for  remission 
of  sins.  How  does  Mr.  M.  dispose  of  this 
case?  He  says  I  "assume  that  repentance 
is  wholly  separate  and  distinct  from  faith, 
so  as  to  be  a  distinct  condition."  This  he 
calls  "exceedingly  unfortunate."  It  is  ex- 
ceedingly unfortunate  for  him,  if  he  denies 
it.  If  there  is  any  thing  in  the  world 
clear,  it  is  that  faith  is  not  repentance  and 
repentance  is  not  faith.  He  cannot  find  an 
authority  in   the   world    that  makes    faith 


JUSTIFICATION.  113 

and  repentance  the  same.  He  says  "  the 
only  faith  that  will  justify  the  soul,  arises 
from  a  penitent  heart."  This  is  mystifi- 
cation doubl}'' mystified.  There  is  no  such 
thing  in  this  universe  as  faith  arising 
from  penitence.  Penitence  is  the  result  of 
faith  and  not  the  cause  of  it.  The  word 
was  spoken  to  the  three  thousand  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  pierced  them  in  the  heart, 
which  led  them  to  inquire  what  they 
should  do.  'No  such  inquiry  ever  entered 
into  their  hearts,  till  they  heard  the  word, 
believed  and  were  pierced  in  their  hearts. 
Then  Peter  commanded  them  to  repent 
and  be  baptized.  He  commanded  them  to 
do  two  things,  both  after  faith.  One  was 
to  repent  and  the  other  was  to  be  baptized. 
He  saj's  that  I  "  assumed  that  the  word 
'for'  (els)  has  the  meaning,  in  that  place, 
of  in  order  to^  I  assumed  nothing,  but 
quoted  the  precise  language  of  the  common 
version.  I  mad^i^no  comment  on  the  word 
"for."  But  did  be  deny  that  the  common 
version  is  right?  No;  he  had  not  the 
courage  to  do  it.  It  was  easier  to  say 
that  I  assumed  that  it  means  in  order  to, 
and  then  remark  that  "  this  is  gratuitous." 
I  now  state  to  him,  that  I  am  satisfied  with 
the  common  version  of  this  passage,  and  if 
he  is  not  and  will  venture  a  change,  I  will 
be  with  him.  The  passage  requires  two 
things  to  be  done,  neither  of  which  is  faith 
onlfj,  for  the  same  purpose,  viz.,  remission  of 
sinsy  which  Mr.  M.  admits  to  be  justification, 

8 


114  DEBATE   ON 

in  the  sense  of  the  proposition.  From  this, 
lie  will  never  escape.  Who  ever  heard  of 
repentance  and  baptism  being  well  calcula- 
ted to  promote  faith?  This  is  darkness 
thick  and  black  as  that  in  Egypt.  Bap- 
tism promote  faith  !  How  it  promotes 
the  faith  of  an  infant ! ! 

"What  kind  of  attention  has  the  worthy 
gentleman  given  the  quotation  from  his 
creed,  made  in  my  first  speech?  Did  I  not 
show  you  how  his  creed  corrupts  the  lan- 
guage of  Jesus?  It  says,  p.  103:  "Our 
Savior  Christ  saith,  None  can  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God,  except  he  be  regener- 
ate and  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  This  is  a  most  manifest  corrup- 
tion and  perversion  of  the  language  of 
Jesus,  evidently  designed  to  make  it  in- 
clude infants.  It  would  not  do  to  quote 
the  language  of  Jesus,  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  for  this  would  not  be  good  authority 
for  baptizing  an  infant.  The  Lord  does 
not  say,  "Except  an  infant  be  born  again," 
but  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again."  Here 
you  have  my  friend's  reason  for  cutting  in- 
fantile justification  out  of  our  argument. 
He  does  not  believe  that  infants  are  justi- 
fied by  faith  only,  but  he  believes  his  Dis- 
cipline that  declares,  in  reference  to  infants, 
that  "none  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  except  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit," 
and  born  of  water  here  means  baptism. 
The  doctrine  of  his  creed  is,  that  infants 


JUSTIFICATION.  115 

cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Grod 
without  baptism ;  hence  he  prays  that  the 
infant  may  receive  "  that  thing  which  by 
nature  he  cannot  have,"  and  that  he  may 
be  delivered  from  the  wrath  of  God^  when 
he  administers  the  rite. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  FOURTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

The  most  remarkable  thing  in  the  gentle- 
man's last  speech,  was  his  assertion  in  re- 
gard to  my  "  confusion."  I  account  for 
this  on  the  well-known  principle,  that  it  is 
perfectly  natural  for  insane  persons  to  im- 
agine ever}'  body  insane  but  themselves. 
In  the  deep  "confusion"  under  which  he 
was  laboring,  he  perhaps  thought  that  are- 
mark  on  the  subject  of"  confusion  "  would 
be  a  relief  to  him,  and  divert  the  attention 
of  his  friends  from  his  woful  flounderings. 
He  persists  in  misrepresenting  me  and  my 
positions.  He  insinuates  that  I  say  the 
word  "  only  "  does  not  exclude  any  thing 
else  besides  faith,  and  then  proceeds  to  show 
that  it  does  exclude  works  !  I  can  scarcely 
excuse  this  on  the  ground  of  "  confusion," 
but  it  is  hard  telling  to  what  lengths  a 
man's  perplexities  will  drive  him.  I  told 
you,  from  the  beginning,  that  it  excludes 
works  from  having  any  part  in  procuring 
or  meriting  justification.  In  his  former 
speeches  he  tried  to  show  that  it  excludes 
the  grace  of  God  and  the  blood  of  Jesus ; 


116  DtlBATE   ON 

but  he  has  now  seen  that  he  cannot  sustain 
that  position  by  any  fair  construction  of 
the  language,  and  confines  his  effort  to 
showing  that  it  does  exclude  works.  If  the 
gentleman  wishes  to  know  my  position  in 
relation  to  good  works,  he  can  read  it  in 
the  Articles  following  the  one  under  discus- 
sion. His  allusion  to  Paine's  Age  of  Eeason 
was,  perhaps,  profound  in  his  estimation  ; 
but  I  miss  my  guess,  if  sensible  men  do  not 
look  upon  it  as  an  attempt  to  stir  up  preju- 
dice, rather  than  to  illustrate  truth. 

My  i^osition  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
this  Article,  was  fully  and  frankly  taken, 
and  if  Mr.  Franklin  cannot  understand  it, 
others  can.  I  confine  the  discussion  to  the 
subject  of  justification,  in  the  sense  of  being 
"  accounted  righteous,"  simply  because  that 
is  the  only  subject  contained  in  our  propo- 
sition. His  attempt  to  show  the  contrary, 
is,  to  use  his  own  beautiful  language,  "  a 
miserable  farce."  So  also  his  remarks 
about  my  being  "  three  fourths  converted," 
because  I  admit  the  precise  ground  taken 
by  me  in  my  opening  address  I  Strange 
conversion,  indeed  ! 

I  have  insisted,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
discussion,  that  it  is  not  the  abstract  definition 
of  the  word  "  only  "  that  is  to  decide  the 
issue  between  Mr.  Franklin  and  myself,  but 
the  use  and  application  made  of  it  in  this 
Article.  It  is  an  exclusive  term — but  the 
question  is.  What  was  it  designed  to  ex- 
cluue?     Mr.   F.    insists    that    it    excludes 


JUSTIFICATION.  117 

every  thing  else,  not  excepting  the  blood  of 
Jesus  and  the  grace  of  Grod.  Upon  this  in- 
terpretation he  bases  his  opposition  to  the 
Article.  Upon  this  forced  construction, 
supported  only  by  his  assertion,  he  sus- 
pends his  cause.  In  vain  I  ask  him  to  ex- 
amine my  interpretation,  and  point  out 
wherein  it  is  wrong.  In  vain  I  appeal  to 
him  to  meet  the  issue  as  presented  by  me. 
He  can  see  nothing  in  the  Article  but  justi- 
fication without  works,  without  repentance, 
without  grace,  without  the  blood  of  Christ 
and  without  any  thing  but  naked  faith — 
faith  alone  and  apart  from  every  thing! 
Does  he  expect  to  make  any  one  believe 
that  he  does  justice  to  the  Article? 

Eut  why  was  "only"  put  there?  My 
friend  calls  it  an  interpolation — a  corrup- 
tion of  the  word  of  God.  He  talks  about 
the  sin  of  adding  to  the  Scriptures!  ISTow 
this  is  all  well  enough  in  its  place,  but  if  he 
can  see  any  thing  in  it  that  is  relevant  to 
our  issue,  or  any  thing  profound,  he  has 
keener  perception  than  most  of  us.  The 
Article  was  framed  while  the  great  contest 
with  Poper}^  was  yet  raging.  The  men 
who  framed  it  were  actively  engaged  in  the 
work  of  reformation.  Their  object  was  to 
stake  off  the  ground — to  run  the  dividing 
line  between  Roman  Catholicism  and  Prot- 
estantism. They  had  their  eye  upon  the 
Papal  dogma  of  justification  by  the  merit  of 
human  works.  Perceiving,  clearly,  the 
pernicious  tendency  of  that   dogma,   they 


118  DEBATE   ON 

determined  to  lift  up  a  standard  against  it. 
They  believed,  fully,  that  God  had  gracious- 
ly provided  for  the  justification  of  man, 
through  the  blood  of  atonement,  so  that  ho 
could  now  "  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him 
which  believeth  in  Jesus."  Thc}^  enter- 
tained not  the  least  doubt  that  Jesus  Christ 
had  meritoriously  provided  for  this,  and 
that  he,  being  "  set  forth  to  be  a  propitia- 
tion through  faith  in  his  "blood,"  was  en- 
titled to  all  the  glory  of  his  work  in  merit- 
ing salvation  for  man.  Then,  belicTing  that 
there  could  be  no  salvation,  only  by  God's 
grace,  through  the  merit  of  Jesus,  would 
they  declare  their  faith  in  such  away  as  in- 
tentionally to  exclude  both  the  grace  of 
God  and  the  blood  of  Jesus?  Never!  But 
with  an  eye  steadily  fixed  upon  the  Popish 
dogma  of  human  merit  in  justification,  they 
proclaimed  that  "  we  are  accounted  right- 
eous before  God  only  for  the  merit  of  our 
Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and 
not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings." 
This  is  the  Article  to  which  my  friend  has 
said  Nay.  Do  you  see  any  thing  wrong  in 
it  ?  I  think  not.  But  the  reformers  did 
not  stop  here.  They  said  "wherefore" — 
but  you  see  nothing  wrong  yet — "  where- 
fore, that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of 
comfort."  Having  laid  down  the  doctrine  in 
the  Article  proper,  they  say  "wherefore," 
and  then  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  moral 
bearing  of  the  doctrine;  and  that   opinion 


JUSTIFICATION.  119 

is,  that  it  is  wholesome  and  full  of  comfort. 
But  in  expressing  this  opinion,  instead  of 
repeating  what  thej^  had  just  said,  they  give 
it  in  short — "  that  we  are  justified  by  faith 
only."  By  faith  in  what?  In  the  blood  of 
Jesus.  By  faith  only  in  the  blood  of  Jesus. 
Does  this  exclude  the  blood  of  Jesus?  But 
why  insert  the  word  "only?"  Simply  to 
exclude  the  merit  of  human  actions,  as  held 
by  Romanists.  Just  as  Paul  said  to  plead- 
ers for  human  merit,  "  To  him  that  work- 
eth  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth 
the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  right- 
eousness ;"  Rom.  iv.  5.  IsTow,  if  Mr.  Frank- 
lin will  show  that  the  Article  excludes  the 
blood  of  Jesus  and  the  grace  of  God,  any 
more  than  this  verse  quoted  from  St.  Paul 
does,  I  will  abandon  it  henceforth  and  for- 
ever. Or  if  he  will  show,  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, what  else  besides  faith  is  imputed  to 
us  for  righteousness,  in  the  work  of  justifi- 
cation, I  will  consent  that  the  word  "only" 
ought  to  be  stricken  out. 

But  while  Mr.  Franklin  prepares  his 
next  bottle  of  wrath  to  pour  out  upon  this 
word  "  only,"  I  will  read  jou  a  passage 
from  a  book  which,  if  it  is  not  a  creed  in 
the  church  to  which  my  friend  belongs,  is 
highly  esteemed,  and  has  been  warmly 
recommended,  by  him  in  his  editorial 
capacity.  It  is  the  "  Christian,  Systnn.^'  by 
Alexander  Campbell.  Mr.  Campbell  is  as 
good  authority  in  the  denomination,  as  is 
Mr.  Franklin   himself.     I  read  from  page 


120  DEBATE   ON 

218  :  *'  And  it  is  here  "worthy  of  notice, 
that  the  Apostles,  in  all  their  speeches  and 
replies  to  interrogatories,  never  command- 
ed an  inquirer  to  pray,  read  or  sing,  as  pre- 
liminary to  coming ;  but  always  com- 
manded and  proclaimed  immersion  as  the 
first  duty,  or  the  first  thing  to  be  done, 
after  a  belief  of  the  testimony.  Hence, 
neither  praying,  singing,  reading,  repent- 
ing, sorrowing,  resolving,  nor  waiting  to 
be  better,  was  the  converting  act.  Im- 
mersion alone  was  that  act  of  turning  to 
God.  Hence,  in  the  commission  to  convert 
the  nations,  the  only  institution  mentioned 
after  proclaiming  the  gospel,  was  the  im- 
mersion of  the  believers,  as  the  divinely 
authorized  way  of  carrying  out  and  com- 
pleting the  work."  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  my  friend  has  something  exclusive  in 
his  own  system.  Does  he  believe  that 
immersion  alone — without  faith,  without 
grace,  without  the  blood  of  Jesus,  without 
prayer,  repentance,  confession,  or  without 
any  thing  whatever,  but  ihe  solitary  act  of 
going  into  the  water — is  the  converting 
act  ?  Were  I  to  affirm  this  of  Mr.  Campbell, 
on  the  authority  of  this  passage  from  his 
writings,  would  not  Mr.  F.  charge  me  witli 
perversion  ? 

IX.  My  next  argument  is,  that  in  Acts 
X.  43,  and  xiii.  38-39,  Peter  and  Paul  de- 
clare in  full  the  condition  of  justification. 
Peter  says,  "  To  him  gave  all  the  prophets 
witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever 


JUSTIFICATION.  121 

believetb  in  liim  shall  receive  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  Paul  saj^s,  '•  Be  it  known 
unto  you,  therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that 
through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the 
forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  by  him  all  that 
believe  are  justified  from  all  things,  from 
which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law 
of  Moses."  These  passages  are  of  one  im- 
23ort.  My  reason  for  saying  they  declare 
in  full  the  condition  of  justification,  is  the 
fact  that  "  While  Peter  yet  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them 
w^hich  heard  the  word  ;"  Acts  x.  44.  Can 
Mr.  F.  find  as  good  a  reason  for  denying 
that  these  Scriptures  set  forth  in  full  the 
condition  of  justification  ?  He  never  can. 
But  where  are  repentance  and  obedience  ? 
Repentance  is  necessarily  connected  with 
faith,  but  it  does  not  perform  the  same 
office — we  are  not  justified  by  repentance. 
Obedience  necessarily  follows  faith,  but 
obedience  does  not  justify;  nor  need  we 
wait  for  faith  to  bring  forth  this  fruit,  be- 
fore we  can  expect  remission  of  sins.  All 
that  believe  are  justified  before  there  is 
time  for  baptism.  This  was  the  case  in 
the  house  of  Cornelius.  They  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  before  the  sermon  was  ended. 
Deny  it,  who  can  ? 

But  right  here  I  notice  that  Mr.  Frank- 
lin says,  "Here  is  a  clear  and  unequivocal 
evidence  tliat  supernatural  gifts  are  no  evi- 
dence of  justification."  So  thought  tlie  Jews 
who  rejected  Christ!     They  acknowledged 


122  DEBATE    ON 

the  "supernatural  gifts,"  but  charged  tho 
Savior  with  getting  them  from  the  devil. 
Then  the  miracles  wrought  by  the  Apostles 
were  no  evidence  that  they  were  men  of 
God!  If  Mr.  F.  believes  this,  I  am  appre- 
hensive that  he  has  had  something  to  do 
with  Paine's  Age  of  Eeason.  But  he  says, 
"  Paul  admits  that  a  man  may  have  them, 
(sujDernatural  gifts)  in  a  high  degree,  and 
be  nothing,  and  certainly  not  justified." 
This  he  bases  on  1.  Cor.  xiii,  1-2,  and  calls 
it  a  "definition  of  a  man  with  faith  only  ;" 
but  I  shall  admit  no  such  charge  against 
the  Apostle.  St.  Paul,  in  order  to  impress 
the  mind  with  the  importance  of"  charity^^^ 
supposes  a  case,  and  a  very  strong  one,  too, 
but  he  does  not  pretend  that  any  such  case 
ever  did  or  ever  could  occur.  His  lan- 
guage is  stronger  than  Mr.  F.  supposed. 
Look  at  it:  "  Thouyh  I  speak  with  the  tongues 
of  men  and  of  angels,  and  have  not  charity, 
I  am  become  as  sounding  brass,  or  a  tink- 
ling cymbal."  Did  Paul  thus  speak?  Was 
he  a  man  with  faith  onlj^?  Did  anybody 
else  thus  speak?  But  look  further  :  "  And 
though  I  have  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  un- 
derstand all  mysteries  and  all  knowledge ;  and 
though  I  have  all  faith,  so  that  I  could  re- 
move mountains,  and  have  not  charity,  I 
am  nothing.  "  Now,  I  take  the  ground 
distinctly,  that  no  man  was  ever  endowed 
with  the  miracle-working  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  promise  of 
the  Scriptures,  without  being  justified.     To 


JUSTIFICATION.  123 

assume  the  contrary,  is  to  sap  the  founda- 
tion of  Christianity.  Wicked  men  were  in- 
stigated by  the  devil  to  mimic  the  miracles 
wrought  by  the  finger  of  God,  and  to  per- 
form "signs  and  wonders,"  of  a  lying  sort, 
so  as  to  "  deceive,  if  possible,  the  very 
elect ;"  but  to  attribute  the  signs  and  lying 
wonders  of  false  prophets  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  a  crime  nearly  related  to  that  of 
attributing  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  to  Beelzebub.  \No,  sir ;  Paul  did 
not  favor  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
given  to  men  who  are  not  justified.  'No 
such  idea  is  found  in  the  Scriptures.  "  Su- 
pernatural gifts  "  were  only  given  to  men 
of  God,  that  they  might  stop  the  mouths  of 
their  adversaries.  One  man — a  baptized 
one,  at  that — attempted  to  purchase  the 
"  gift "  with  money ;  but  he  received  a 
most  withering  rebuke.  But  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given  to  some  before  baptism.  This 
Mr.  F.  cannot  deny,  It  was  thus  given  in 
the  house  of  Cornelius.  Then  I  repeat  the 
inquiry,  Huw  can  my  friend  insist  that 
baptism  is  a  condition  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins?     This  music  he  must  face  ! 

He  still  insists  that  faith  is  the  act  of  a 
depraved  creature.  Does  he  mean  that 
faith  is  the  mere  product  of  the  natural 
heart f  If  he  does,  he  is  wrong;  for  it  ia 
the  "fruit  of  the  Spirit."  Does  he  mean 
that  faith  is  a  work  of  like  character  with 
what  the  Scriptures  call  works  ?  If  so,  he 
is  wrong  again  ;  for,  as  before  shown,  faith 


124  DEBATE   ON 

and  works  are  contrasted.  ''  To  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth,"  etc.  This  is 
nothing  but  one  of  Mr.  Franklin's  quibbles. 
"When  I  say  faith  justifies,  I  do  not,  as  he 
would  represent,  say  that  faith  does  the 
work  which  belongs  to  God  ;  hut  that  it  re- 
ceives the  merit  of  Christ,  and  appropriates  the 
hlessing  that  God  has  promised  and  the  Savior 
purchased.  Is  there  any  thing  wrong  in 
this?  1  thus  explicitly  answer  the  ques- 
tion he  proposed,  as  to  the  office  which 
faith  performs  :  Will  he  as  frankly  show 
me  where  this  office  is  performed  by  any 
thing  else?  Where  is  it  said  we  are  justi- 
fied by  repentance — by  confession — by  bap- 
tism ?  He  never  will  tell.  I  have  not  de- 
nied that  "only"  ever  means  "alone;"  but 
I  have  said  this  Article  does  not  speak  of 
faith  alone.  It  speaks  of  faith  which  is 
living.  The  faith  of  which  Mr.  Franklin 
talks,  is  faith  alone.  He  talks  of  that  faith 
which  is  before  repentance ;  and  it  is  certain 
that  the  faith  which  does  not  arise  from  a 
penitent  heart,  is  the  faith  which  is  com- 
mon to  wicked  men  and  devils.  He  may 
call  this  "mystification;"  but  he  can  never 
get  out  of  it.  Mr.  F.  gives  strong  indica- 
tion that  this  is  the  only  faith  he  knows 
any  thing  about. 

He  wants  it  understood  that  he  does  not 
believe  the  Article  speaks  of  justification  in 
one  sense  only.  Now,  if  he  will  just  take 
the  language,  and  show  that  it  means  any 
other  justification  than  that  of  being  "  ac- 


JUSTIFICATION.  125 

counted  righteous,"  I  will  walk  with  him 
side  by  side  in  the  investigation.  But  he 
can  not  do  it.  He  first  complains  of  my 
distinctions,  then  admits  they  are  right, 
and  then  he  insists  that  I  must  debate  jus- 
tification in  ever}'-  sense,  whether  in  the 
proposition  or  not.  Surely  he  is  hard 
pressed !  But  he  made  an  attempt  at 
down -right  perversion — -in  his  confusion — - 
which  I  must  notice. 

He  says  I  yield  the  point  that  in- 
fant justification  is  not  by  fiiith  only;  but 
how  could  I  yield  a  point  I  never  held  ? 
Ho  says  I  yield  the  point  that  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  righteous  and  the  justification 
in  the  last  judgment,  are  not  by  faith  only. 
But  does  he  not  know  that  this  was  my 
original  position,  from  which  I  have  not 
swerved  for  a  moment?  He  will  excuse 
me  from  any  further  debate  on  this  point! 
How  kind  !  When  did  I  begin  to  debate 
this  point?  Was  he  not  just  complaining 
because  /  icould  not  debate  the  question  of 
the  justification  of  the  righteous,  which  is 
not  in  the  proposition?  Look  at  his  words: 
"  To  state  the  matter  more  clearly,  he  does 
not  believi^  that  infants  are  justified  by 
faith  only,  or,  which  he  thinks  the  same, 
only  for  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  When  did  I  say,  Infants  are  not 
justified  only  for  the  merits  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ?  Never!  This  Mr.  F.  knows 
very  well.  He  takes  what  I  said  of  one 
justification,  and  represents  me  as  saying  it 


126  DEBATE  ON 

of  another,  and  thus  places  me  and  the 
whole  subject  in  a  false  position.  If  he 
was  not  confused  when  he  did  this,  it  is  so 
much  the  worse  for  him.  He  is  left  with- 
out excuse. 

He  now  foirly  denies  that  Abraham  was 
justified  more  than  once.  In  this  he  arrays 
James  against  Paul.  Abraham  was  jus^ 
tified  when  Tie  believed  God,  and  it  was  ac- 
counted to  him  for  righteousness.  Paul 
says  plainly  that  this  was  "  while  he  was 
yet  uncircumcised  ;"  Komans,  iv :  10-12. 
James  says  he  was  jmtified  by  works  when 
he  offered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar.  !But 
Mr.  F.  says  he  was  only  justified  once  !  He 
says,  further,  that  Abraham  was  a  righteous 
man  before  Grod  made  the  promise.  This 
is  true  in  regard  to  one  promise;  but  to 
say  he  was  righteous  long  before  he  be- 
lieved God,  is  grossly  absurd  ;  and  it  was 
when  he  believed  God  he  was  justified. 
Human  acts  can  never  reconcile  the  Scrip- 
tures without  admitting  two  distinct  acta 
of  justification.  Mr.  Franklin  may  call  it 
all  "  assumption,"  but  there  stand  the 
facts!  I  shall  certainly  "  keep  cool,"  and 
hold  the  cold  facts  of  the  Bibl(^before  my 
friend.  Does  he  deny  that  Abraham  was 
ever  a  sinner  f  Does  he  deny  that  he  was 
ever  pardoned  ?  Was  he  righteous  long 
before  he  was  pardoned?  Alas!  for  the 
man;  to  what  will  he  come  next? 

He  blundered  over  my  eighth  argument: 
talked  about  TJniversalism— misquoted  my 


JUSTinCATION.  127 

language — and^  as  usual,  failed  so  much  as 
to  quote  the  Scriptures  on  which  the  argu- 
ment was  based.  This  is  answering  argu- 
ments !  But  can  he  nerve  himself  up  to 
deny  that  believers  enjoy  a  present  life  of 
faith  which  the  Scriptures  call  eternal  ?  I 
apprehend  not.  But  he  says  the  argument 
never  passed,  with  him,  "for  more  than  a 
second  or  third  rate  sophistry^  He  knows 
the  value  of  the  article,  and  none  but  the 
first  rate  sophistry  will  pass  with  him  !  No- 
thing else  will  answer  his  purpose!  But 
why  did  he  not  just  point  out  the  soph- 
istry ?  Why  did  he  not  say  that  he  that 
believeth  hath  not  eternal  life?  That  would 
be  too  bad  !  He  can  see  me  "  giving  up" 
what  I  never  held,  and  "yielding"  that 
which  I  never  pretended  to  hold,  and  get- 
ing  "  converted"  to  my  own  doctrine,  and 
giving  up  the  controversy  by  refusing  to 
debate  what  was  never  before  us  ;  but  to 
see  any  thing  but  "  miserable  sophistry," 
in  arguments  based  directly  on  the  words 
of  inspiration,  is  to  him  impossible. 

But  he  charges  me  with  "blowing  hot 
and  cold  with  one  breath."  The  mistake 
was  in  applying  it  to  me  instead  of  himself. 
He  finds  justification  in  the  "  commission" 
where  the  word  does  not  occur ;  but  he 
will  not,  and  he  dare  not,  dispute  my  posi- 
tion— 1st,  That  the  passage  relates  directly 
to  the  future  state ;  and,  2d,  That  the 
promise,  that  "  he  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved,"  implies  the  fulfil- 


128  DEBATE   ON 

ment  of  the  covenant  engagements  in- 
volved in  baptism.  But  it*  these  points 
are  true,  his  way  of  forcing  baptism  be- 
tween the  exercise  of  faith  and  the  first  act 
of  pardon,  is  unauthorized  and  to  be  con- 
demned. Special  promises  made  to  the 
baptized,  depend  not  on  the  mere  cere- 
mony of  baptism,  but  on  the  fulfillment  of 
the  baptismal  engagements.  Here  the  only 
promise  made  is  future  salvation.  The  ap- 
plication of  this  passage  to  justification  is 
all  wrong.  When  the  time  arrives  for  ful- 
filling this  promise,  all  who  have  not  lived 
np  to  their  covenant  obligations  will  be 
accounted  nnbaptized.  Will  my  friend 
deny  this?  I  therefore  claim  that,  on  this 
point,  Mr.  F.  is  "  my  prisoner." 

In  regard  to  Acts  ii.  38,  I  remark  that 
the  gentleman  did  assume  the  essential 
points  in  the  argument.  I  am  willing  to 
take  the  version  as  it  is,  and  hold  that,  un- 
der some  circumstances,  baptism  may  be  a 
means  of  pardon;  but,  as  I  before  remarked, 
Mr.  F.  confounds  the  means  of  justification 
with  the  condition.  Mr.  AVesley  calls  bap- 
tism a  means  of  pardon.  Beading  the  Bible, 
conversing  with  friends,  attending  upon 
the  ministr}'  of  the  word  and  commemo- 
rating the  death  of  Jesus,  are  all  means  of 
grace — mQHTiS  of  justification  ;  but  these  are 
not  the  condition.  Just  so  with  re[>entanc6 
and  baptism.  We  read,  pray,  sing,  com- 
mune, repent,  receive  baptism,  hear  the 
word,  talk  with  friends — all  '^for   the  re- 


JUSTinCATlON.  129 

mission  of  sins;"  but  not  one  of  these  acts 
can  receive  and  appropriate  the  blessing — 
all  of  them  together  cannot  fill  the  oifice  of 
faith.  But  Mr.  F.  can  see  no  difference 
between  the  means  of  grace  and  the  condi- 
tion of  justification;  hence  his  confusion. 

But  he  reiterated  his  charge  that  the 
Discipline  corrupts  the  words  of  Jesus  in 
saying,  "  None  can  enter,"  etc.,  instead  of 
saying,  *' Except  ii  man  be' born  again," 
etc.  Now  I  know  the  Discipline  does  not 
pretend  to  quote  the  passage,  but  it  does  not 
corrupt  it.  The  word  Tnan^  which  he  em^ 
phasized,  is  not  in  the  passage^  and  I  chal- 
lenge him  to  show  that  it  is.  He  wants  to 
get  into  the  Greek,  and  I  challenge  him  to 
take  the  Greek  Testament  and  show  the 
word  onan  in  the  place !  It  reads,  ecui 
me  tis  gennethe,  etc.;  but  anthropas  is  not 
there.  Nor  does  entering  the  kingdom 
mean  justification.  But  my  time  is  ex- 
pired. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  FOURTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  desire  you  to  keep  in  mind  the  precise 
issue  between  us.  Mr.  M.  does  not  contend 
that  infantile  justification  is  by  faith  only. 
Justification  in  this  sense  he  excepts  as  not 
coming  in  the  scope  of  our  controversy. 
Justification  in  the  sense  of  approval,  on 
the  part  of  the  righteous,  he  not    only  ex- 

9 


130  DEBATE   ON 

cepts  as  not  coming  in  the  range  of  our  ar- 
gument, but  he  admits  it  to  be  by  obedi- 
ence or  by  works.  Justification,  also,  in 
the  day  of  judgment,  he  maintains,  does 
not  come  within  the  purview  of  our  debate. 
Justification  in  this  sense,  also,  he  knows,  is 
not  by  faith  only.  So  far  as  justification  in 
these  three  senses  is  concerned,  he  has  de- 
clined any  debate,  though  he  could,  with 
just  as  much  propriety,  have  taken  justi- 
fication in  any  one  of  these  three  senses,  as 
the  meaning  of  the  Article  in  dispute,  as 
the  one  he  has  fixed  upon.  He  has  given 
no  reason,  and  can  give  no  reason,  why 
he  should  select  justification  in  one  sense 
only^  and  claim  that  it  is  by  faith  only, 
when  the  Article  is  treating  of  the  general 
subject  of  justification,  in  which  "we  are 
justified  before  God."  There  can  be  no 
question,  in  an  unsophisticated  mind,  but 
that  in  every  sense,  and  in  every  case,  I 
can  find  in  the  New  Testament,  where  it  is 
said,  in  so  many  words,  or  substantially  in 
any  form,  "  we  are  justified  before  God,"  it 
comes  legitimately  in  the  scope  of  our  de- 
bate. Eut  then  it  would  be  cruel  to  compel 
3Ir.  M.  to  defend  what  he  does  not  believe. 
Seeing,  then,  that  he  does  not  believe  that 
infantile  justification  is  by  faith  only,  we 
are  not  to  exj)ect  him  to  defend  that.  Since, 
too,  he  has  granted  that  the  justification  of 
the  righteous,  in  the  sense  of  approval,  is 
not  by  faith  only,  but  by  obedience — by 
works  we — must  excuse  him  here  also.   In- 


JUSTIFICATION.  131 

asrauch,  also,  as  he  has  found  that  justifica- 
tion, in  the  judgment,  is  not  by  faith  only, 
but  will  be  according  to  our  works,  he 
should  not  be  compelled  to  maintain  that 
it  is  by  faith  only.  Having  now  evaded 
the  argument  on  justification  by  faith  only, 
in  these  three  senses,  he  has  but  one  pin  to 
hang  upon,  or  but  one  sense  in  which  he 
maintains  that  we  are  justified  by  faith 
only.  That  is  the  sense  of  remission  of 
sins,  or  pardon,  in  conversion.  The  simple 
question  left,  and  the  only  question,  is 
whether  the  sinner,  in  turning  to  God,  in 
conversion,  is  justified  by  faith  only.  Faith 
is  the  act  of  the  creature.  Does  that  act,  as 
Mr.  M.  says,  do  the  work?  Does  it,  and  it 
only,  justify  ?  Why,  then,  does  he  employ 
the  mourner's  bench  ?  Why  tell  the  sinner 
to  pray  for  pardon,  or  justification,  then? 
Why  tell  the  sinner,  as  he  and  all  Metho- 
dist preachers  do,  that  the  publican  prayed 
— that  he  smote  upon  his  breast  and  said, 
"  Grod  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner?"  Why 
keep  the  sinner  agonizing,  mourning  and 
prajnng,  if  justification  is  by  faith  only? 
If  faith  pardons,  does  the  work,  justifies — 
if  faith  o??/y  justifies,  or  remits  sins,  and  is 
accounted  for  righteousness,  the  act  of  the 
creature  remits  sins,  and  there  is  no  sense 
in  praying  for  mourners,  or,  at  least,  there 
is  no  sense  in  their  praying  for  themselves, 
that  Grod  would  pardon  them.  But  here  is 
where  he  is  stranded.  Faith  does  not  par- 
don, remit  sins  or  justify,  any   more  than 


132  DEBATE   ON 

repentance  does,  or  any  more  than  the  con- 
fession does,  or  calling  nj^on  the  name  of 
the  Lord.  JSTothiug  that  the  creature  can 
do,  can  forgive  sins  or  justify  the  sinner. 
The  Lord  alone  can  forgive  sins.  Faith 
prepares  the  sinner  for  pardon,  but  it  does 
not  pardon  him.  Faith  and  repentance 
still  further  prepare  the  sinner  for  remis- 
sion of  sins  ;  but  faith  and  repentance  both 
do  not  remit  sins.  Faith,  repentance,  con- 
fession and  baptism,  all,  in  their  proper 
j)laces,  do  not  remit  sins,  but  are  simply  the 
appointments  through  which  the  sinner 
comes  to  the  promise  of  God,  where  the 
Lord  has  promised  pardon  or  justification. 
My  worthy  friend  has  informed  us  that 
Paul  was  justified  before  he  was  baptized  ! 
I  feel  a  little  curious  to  know  where  he 
learned  this  !  The  Lord  appeared  to  Saul, 
and  said,  "Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 
me."  Saul  said,  "Who  art  thou?"  The 
Lord  answered,  "I  am  Jesus  whom  thou 
persecutest."  Saul  believed  this  revelation, 
for  he  responded,  "Lord  what  wilt  thou 
have  me  to  do  ?"  His  faith  did  not  do  the 
work,  it  did  not  justify  him;  but  prepared 
him  to  proceed  in  search  of  justification. 
He  inquired  what  he  should  do  for  justifi- 
cation or  pardon.  The  Lord  told  him  to 
"  Arise  and  go  into  Damascus,  and  there 
it  shall  be  told  thee  of  all  things  which  are 
appointed  for  thee  to  do."  See  Acts  xx.  10. 
"AH  things  appointed"  for  what?  For 
pardon  or  justification.     The  Lord  does  not 


JUSTIFICATION.  ISS 

say,  Go  to  Damascus,  and  there  the  onhj 
thing  appointed  for  justification  shall  bo 
told  thee,  but  "  there  it  shall  be  told  thee  of 
all  things  which  are  appointed  "  for  justifi- 
cation. Can  the  "  all  things  which  the 
Lord  has  appoiLted,"  by  any  twisting,  be 
compressed  into  the  one  act  of  believing? 
Surely  not.  vSaul  went  to  Damascus  and 
waited  to  hear  of  all  things  that  were  ap- 
pointed for  him  to  do.  Ananias  was  sent 
to  him  to  tell  him  what  "  he  must  do,"  as 
we  find  Acts,  ninth  chapter,  or  "  all  things 
appointed  for  him  to  do,"  as  expressed  Acts 
xxii.  10.  What  did  Ananias  tell  him  to  do? 
He  did  not  tell  him  to  believe,  for  he  al- 
ready believed ;  nor  did  he  tell  him  that  he 
was  justified  by  faith  only^  but  commanded 
him  to  "Arise,  and  be  baj)tized  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Dord."  The  repentance  is  not  mentioned 
here,  but  we  are  not  to  presume  that  he 
was  justified  without  repentance.  This  is 
impossible,  for  "  repentance  and  remission 
of  sins  "  are  both  found  in  the  commission. 
Eepentance  being  in  the  same  commission 
with  faith,  and  to  be  preached  with  faith, 
is  just  as  indispensable  as  faith.  There 
was,  unquestionably,  repentance  in  Paul's 
conversion,  and  faith  too,  though  neither  is 
mentioned,  and  every  other  conversion 
mentioned  in  the  word  of  God.  But  bap- 
tism, and  calling  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  are  both  mentioned  among  the  "  all 
things"    appointed    for   justification.     He 


134  DEBATE    ON 

was  commanded,  by  the  man  of  God,  to 
"  Arise,  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away 
his  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
"  Wash  away  thy  sins,"  is  pardon  or  justi- 
fication. This  was  not  by  faith  only,  nor 
before  rejDcntance,  baptism  and  calling  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  but  the  washing 
away  of  sins,  pardon  or  justification,  follow- 
ed arising  and  being  baptized.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley says,  npon  the  words,  "  Be  baptized 
and  wash  away  thy  sins."  "  Baptism  ad- 
ministered to  real  penitents,  is  both  a  means 
and  seal  of  pardon.  i^Teither  did  G-od  ordi- 
narily, in  the  primitive  church,  bestow  this 
on  any,  unless  through  this  means."  Mr. 
M.  will  say,  "  Father  Wesley,  you  are  a 
little  mistaken  here;  it  is  not  through  this 
means,  but  through  faith  only^  he  bestows 
pardon."  Let  me  read  him  a  few  more 
words  from  Father  Wesley:  "Baptism  doth 
now  save  us,  if  we  live  answerable  thereto  ; 
if  we  repent,  believe  and  obey  the  gospel ; 
supposiog  this,  as  it  admits  us  into  the 
church  here,  so  into  glory  hereafter;"  Doct. 
Tracts,  p.  249. 

But  it  is  time,  now,  that  some  plain  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  this  controversy  should 
come  to  an  issue.  In  order  to  this  end,  if 
Mr.  M.  please,  I  desire  him  to  answer  a  few . 
plain  questions.  1,  Can  any  man  be  justi- 
fied without  confessing  Christ  ?  2,  Did 
not  some  believe  and  yet  not  confess 
Christ?  See  the  following  :  "  JSTevertheless 
among  the  chief  rulers  also  many  believed 


JUSTIFICATION.  135 

on  him  ;  but  because  of  the  Pharisees,  they 
did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be 
put  out  of  the  synagogue  ;  for  they  loved 
the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of 
God;"  John  xii.  42.  These  believed  on 
Jesus.  Were  tbey  justified?  They  were 
not.  Why?  Because  they  believed  onJy^ 
but  did  not  confess.  They  believed  and 
were  not  justified  ;  the  reason  is,  that  they 
believed  only^  and  did  not  love  Jesus  suffi- 
ciently to  confess,  and  thus  lose  the  praise 
of  men.  These  had  faith  ;  were  they  justi- 
fied in  a  single  hour?  Did  faith  "do  the 
work?"  Did  faith  justify  them  ?  Was  faith 
counted  to  them  for  righteousness  ?  l!^o. 
Why?  Because  it  was  "faith  only^^  or 
faith  alone. 

Let  us  hear  the  holy  Apostle  :  "  He  came 
unto  his  own  and  his  own  received  him 
not.  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to 
them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of 
God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his 
name;"  John  i.  11-12.  What  did  the 
Lord  do  for  those  who  believed  on  his 
name?  He  gave  them  power  to  become — 
what  they  were  not  by  fcdtli  only — "  the 
sons  of  God."  One  justified  is  a  son  of 
God;  but  here  we  have  believers  who  were 
not  sons  of  God,  but  had  power  given  them 
to  "become  sons.  Had  Mr.  M.  been  j^resent 
when  John  wrote  this,  he  would  have  re- 
marked, "  Bro.  John,  you  are  a  little  at 
variance  with  Methodist  theology.  It  is 
faith  that  does  the  work — faith  only  justi- 


136  DEBATE  ON 

fies.  As  soon  as  they  believe,  they  have 
eternal  life — arc  justified,  and  consequently 
sons  of  God  ;  how  then  do  you  speak  of 
the  Lord  giving  them  power  to  become  sons  of 
Godf  Let  Mr.  M.  answer  this.  He  never 
will.  He  never  can.  It  is  a  refutation  of 
his  whole  faith  only  theory. 

Again,  John  says,  "Many  other  signs  did 
Jesus  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples, 
which  are  not  written  in  this  book  ;  but 
these  are  written  that  you  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  G-od  ; 
and  that,  believing,  you  might  have  life 
through  his  name  ;"  John  xx.  30-31.  This 
passage  corresponds  precisely  with  the  one 
just  quoted.  J^either  of  them  looks  uj)on 
faith  only^  as  constituting  a  son  of  G-od — 
giving  life  or  justifying  ;  but  the  belief  is 
that  he  might  have,  what  he  has  not  yet, 
life  through  his  name,  and  he  gives  the  be- 
liever poicer  to  become  what  he  is  not  yet — 
a  son  of  God. 

I  am  truly  surprised  with  one  of  Mr.  M.'s 
statements  in  the  speech  just  delivered. 
He  says :  "  St.  Paul,  in  order  to  impress 
the  mind  with  the  importance  of  charity, 
supposes  a  case,  and  a  very  strong  one,  too ; 
but  he  does  not  pretend  that  any  such  case 
ever  did,  or  ever  could,  occur."  I  do  not 
think  the  Apostle  does  pretend  that  any 
such  case  ever  did,  or  could  occur,  but  I  am 
not  willing  to  admit  that  the  holy  Apostle 
supposed  a  case  that  never  did  or  could 
occur.     This  is  a  likely  affair,  truly  !     He 


JUSTIFICATION.  137 

was  talking,  at  the  very  time  he  uttered 
this,  to  men  who  had  supernatural  gifts; 
spoke  with  tongues,  prophesied  and  did 
miracles,  but  had  not  charity^  or  love^  as  Mr. 
Wesley  translates  agapee  in  this  passage. 
They  were  making  a  grand  mistake — the 
precise  one,  too,  of  my  friend — in  making- 
supernatural  gifts  an  evidence  of  their  per- 
sonal acceptance  with  God,  or  justification, 
while  they  had  not  love.  The  Apostle  sets 
all  this  aside,  by  assuring  them  that,  though 
they  had  much  greater  miraculous  gifts 
than  they  had,  and  had  not  love,  they  were 
nothing — though  they  had  all  faith,  even 
the  faith  for  which  Mr.  M.  contends,  but 
without  love,  or  with  faith  onJy^  they  were 
nothing.  Mr.  M.  quotes  the  words  of  the 
Apostle — "  Though  I  have  the  gift  of 
prophesy,  and  understand  all  mysteries, 
and  all  knowledge,  and  though  I  have  all 
faith,  so  that  I  could  remove  mountains, 
and  have  not  charity,  I  am  nothing," — and 
remarks,  "Now  I  take  the  ground  dis- 
tinctly, that  no  man  was  ever  endowed 
with  the  miracle-working  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  promise  of 
the  Scriptures,  without  being  justified." 
I  leave  him  and  Paul  here  in  direct  issue. 
Paul  makes  the  man  with  all  faith,  without 
charity,  or  with  faith  only,  nothing ;  and 
Mr.  M.  makes  him  justified.  The  false 
theory  of  his  creed  has  so  long  operated 
upon  his  mind,  that  hecannotbe  convinced, 
by  the  unequivocal  oracles  of  heaven — the 


138  DEBATE   ON 

clear  authority  of  the  Scrii:)tnres — of  truth. 
The  view  he  talces  of  tlie  intention  of  mira- 
cles, is  a  mistaken  one.  The  object  of  the 
miracles  a  man  performed,  was  not  to  con- 
vince those  who  saw  the  miracles  or  read 
of  them,  that  the  man  himself  was  justified, 
or  a  saint,  but  to  confirm  what  he  uttered, 
or  some  work  he  was  in,  or  some  grand 
move  Grod  was  making  among  men.  Mir- 
acles confirmed  the  mission  of  Christ,  of 
the  Apostles,  the  gospel  and  the  church  ; 
but  the  worker  of  miracles  had  to  have  the 
same  evidence  of  justification  as  any  man 
who  never  worked  a  miracle.  No  matter 
how  much  faith  he  has,  nor  how  many 
miracles  he  may  perform,  if  he  has  not  love, 
he  has  nothing — he  is  not  justified. 

Mr.  M.  says  that  "  One  man)  a  baptized 
one,  at  that)  attempted  to  purchase  the 
"gift"  with  money,  but  he  received  a 
most  withering  rebuke."  Why  did  Mr. 
M.  stop  and  throw  in  parenthetically,  in 
such  a  sarcastic  manner,  the  words,  "  a  bap- 
tized one,  at  that !"  Shame  upon  such  tri- 
fling! Nothing  could  show  his  lack  of  the 
very  love  of  which  Paul  was  speaking  more 
clearly  than  this  angry  fling.  Why  did  he 
not  tell  you  that  Simon  was  "  one  of 
the  justified  by  faith  only  V  for  he  believed. 
See  Acts  viii.  13  :  "  Then  Simon  himself 
helieved  also."  Was  hQ  justified?  Let  the 
gentleman  tell  us  whether  he  was  justified 
by  faith  only ! 

When  I  say  fjaith  is  the  act  of  the  crea- 


JUSTIFICATION.  139 

ture,  I  mean  that  it  is  something  the  crea- 
ture does,  as  when  it  is  said,  "Abraham  be- 
lievied  God,"  it  was  something  Abraham 
did  ;  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Jailor,  when 
Paul  commanded  him  to  "  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  commanded  him  to 
do  something,  and  something,  too,  before 
he  could  be  justified;  but  not  something 
that  had  merit  in  it  to  do  the  work — to  jus- 
tify ,  but  something  that  would  j)repare 
his  heart  to  be  justified.  If  my  friend  does 
not  say  that  faith  does  the  work  which  be- 
longs to  God,  he  does  say,  in  so  many 
words,  "It  does  the  work — it  justifies;"  and 
when  he  tells  what  he  means  by  the  word 
"justifies,"  he  says  it  means  pardon.  He 
has,  then,  without  any  straining  or  per- 
version of  his  language,  made  faith — the 
act  of  the  creature,'  a  depraved  and  uncon- 
verted creature — "do  the  work" — justify 
or  pardon  the  sinner,  and  thus  ascribes  to 
faith  the  work  that  j)roperly  belongs  to 
God,  for  pardon  is  the  work  of  God.  His 
whole  argument  upon  merit  is  against  faith 
as  much  as  repentance  ;  for  there  is  no  more 
merit  in  faith  than  there  is  in  rej^entance. 
There  is  none  in  either,  and  one  is  as 
much  a  means,  or  as  strictly  means,  through 
which  man  comes  to  God,  and  through 
which  man  is  justified,  as  the  other.  I 
know  that  nothing  else  can  perform  the 
office  of  faith  or  do  the  work  that  faith 
does ;  nor  can  any  thing  else  perform 
the    ofiice    or     do    the    work    of  repent- 


140  DEBATE    ON 

ance.  I  am  not  saying  any  thing  about 
the  comparative  importance  of  faith  and 
rej^entance — no  matter  wliich  is  the  more 
important — both  are  in  the  commission, 
and  both  appointments — both  conditions, 
through  which  man  is  justified.  But  the 
true  state  of  the  case  with  Mr.  M.,  or  his 
church,  is  that  he  has  no  intelligible  sys- 
tem of  justification.  Hence  thousands  con- 
nected with  his  church  are  only  seekers^ 
who  have  been  seekers — many  of  them  as 
anxious  and  honest  souls  as  live — and  the 
ministry  cannot  show  them  the  way  to 
God.  Their  system  has,  in  this  way,  been 
tried  and  shown  itself,  in  this  way,  to  be  a 
failure.  Thousands  of  the  seekers,  who 
have  belonged  to  his  church  on  trial,  have 
listened  honestly,  sought  fervently  and  in- 
quired diligently  till  the  last,  and  died 
without  finding.  The  fault  is  not  in  the 
people.  There  is  no  light  in  the  teaching. 
Not  a  man  here  can  tell,  from  all  Mr.  M. 
has  said,  how  he  may  come  to  God.  He 
preaches,  here,  that  you  may  come  and  be 
justified  by  faith  only;  but  you  go  forward 
in  his  church,  and  inquire  what  you  must 
do,  and  you  will  hear  nothing  about  justi- 
fication by  faith  only,  but  he  will  invite  you 
to  the  mourner's  bench  and  tell  you  to  pray 
and  be  prayed  for.  After  you  have  repeat- 
ed this,  it  may  be,  every  evening  for  two 
weeks,  as  is  the  casein  numerous  instances, 
without  any  relief,  he  proposes  to  you  to 
join   on  trial.    Here  many  are   kej)t  for 


JUSTIFICATION.  141 

years,  and  can  be  nothing  more  than  seek- 
ers, for  no  reason  in  the  world,  only  that 
the  preachers  will  not  give  them  the  plain 
instructions  of  the  holy  Apostles  to  in- 
quirers in  precisely  the  same  condition. 
All  this,  however,  will  come  up  on  our 
fourth  proposition,  and  I  leave  it  for  the 
present. 

I  must  take  the  worthy  gentleman  back 
to  Abraham  once  more.  He  has  confined 
himself  to  the  justification  or  pardon  of  the 
sinner  in  conversion.  Where  does  he  go  to 
find  his  sinner  ?  Abraham  is  the  example. 
Where  does  he  find  Abraham's  conversion, 
or  his  justification  by  faith  only  ?  He  finds 
it  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Romans.  But 
is  there  anything  about  Abraham's  conver- 
sion, or  the  pardon  of  his  sins,  in  that 
chapter?  He  says,  ^'Abraham  believed 
God."  Yery  well,  what  had  God  said, 
when  he  believed  him  ?  He  believed  the 
promise,  that  he  should  be  the  father  of 
many  nations.  (See  verse  17.)  "  Against 
hope  he  believed  in  hope,  that  he  might  be 
the  father  of  many  nations,  according  to 
that  which  wms  spoken."  (See  verse  18.) 
How  old  was  he  when  he  believed  ?  "  And 
being  not  weak  in  faith,  he  considered  not 
his  own  body  now  dead,  when  he  was 
about  an  hundred  years  old,  neither  yetihe 
deadness  of  Sarah's  womb;  he  staggered 
not  at  the  promise  of  God  through  unbe- 
lief; but  was  strong  in  faith,  giving  glory 
to    God ;  and  being  fully  persuaded  that 


1^2  DEBATE   ON 

what  he  had  promised,  he  was  able  also  to 
perform;  and,  therefore,  it  was  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness."  See  Homans  iv. 
19,  20,  21,  22.  This  is  his  example  of  the 
justification  of  a  sinner^  found  in  the  old 
saint — the  patriarch  Abraham — when  he 
was  about  an  hundred  years  old.  What 
think  you  of  his  sinner  f  Where  will  he 
find  his  righteousness  justified  in  his  other 
sense  of  a]3proval,  which  he  has  admitted 
to  be  by  works  ?  If  he  could  blush  on  ac- 
count of  defeat,  he  certainly  would  do  it 
now,  and  admit  that  he  is  wrong.  Abra- 
ham was  certainly  a  righteous  man  scores 
of  years  before  this  justification;  this  jus- 
tification was  the  justification  of  a  right- 
eous man,  in  the  sense  of  approval,  which 
Mr.  M.  admits  to  be  by  works.  He  has 
adopted  this,  and  made  it  an  example  for 
us ;  even  that  we  must  be  justified  in  the 
same  sense,  or  made  this  the  sense  of  the 
proposition,  and  this  is  refuted  beyond 
redemption. 

I  have  one  more  matter  with  the  worthy 
gentleman  before  I  take  m}''  seat.  He  says, 
"  the  word  7?ian  is  not  in"  John  iii :  5.  I 
say  deliberately,  and  yet  coolly  and  kindly, 
with  all  due  deference  to  the  gentleman, 
that  the  word  man  is  in  the  passage.  1  am 
aware  that  the  original  is  not  anthropos, 
but  tis ;  but  it  is  translated  correctly,  man, 
in  the  common  version,  in  this  place,  as  it 
is  in  numerous  other  places.  The  pronoun 
he  following  the  word,  shows  that  it  should 


JUSTIFICATION.  143 

be  translated  man.  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  again  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  G-od."  Not  only  so,  but  Nicodenius 
understood  him  to  say  man^  for  in  his  re- 
ply he  used  the  word  anthropos,  in  the 
words,  "  How  can  a  7nan  (cmthropos)  be 
born  when  he  is  old?"  He  says,  "The 
Discipline  does  not  pretend  to  quote  the 
passage."  I  know  not  whether  it  pretends 
or  not,  but  it  says,  "Our  Savior  Christ 
saith,  J^one  can  enter  in  the  kingdom,"  etc. 
When  I  say,  that  "  Our  Savior  Christ 
saith,"  thus  or  so,  I  think  the  people  look 
for  a  quotation.  There  cannot  be  a  grand- 
er perversion  of  the  word  of  Grod,  than  ap- 
plying these  words  of  our  Lord  to  uncon- 
scious infants.  I  hope  Mr.  M.  will  never 
again  do  such  a  thing. 

There  is  a  grand  chain  of  the  items  in 
the  system  of  man's  redemption,  and  if  a 
single  link  be  stricken  out,  all  is  lost  and 
unavailing.  If  the  goodness  of  God  had 
never  prompted  the  scheme,  nothing  would 
have  followed  ;  or  if,  when  the  goodness  of 
God  had  prompted  it,  his  love  for  man  had 
not  been  such  that  he  gave  his  Son,  noth- 
ing for  us  would  have  followed.  If  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  had  not  ap- 
peared in  his  becoming  poor  that  we, 
through  his  poverty,  might  be  rich,  noth- 
ing else  would  have  availed  any  thing.  If 
the  Lord  had  not  performed  his  mission 
on  earth,  no  justification  would  have  come 
to  man.     If  the  Apostles  had  not  perform- 


144  DEBATE    ON 

ed  their  work,  in  preaching  the  gospel  to 
every  creiiture,  all  would  have  been  lost. 
If  the  gospel  had  not  been  believed  by  man, 
all  that  God  had  done  for  him  would  avail 
nothing;  or  if  man  believes  the  gospel  and 
does  not  repent,  he  will  perish.  When 
grace  is  the  theme  of  the  holy  writer,  ho 
says  we  are  saved  by  grace.  When  faith 
is  the  theme,  he  says  we  are  saved  by 
faith,  but  intends  the  reader  to  have  under- 
standing enough  to  know,  that,  at  the  same 
time,  it  is  by  faith,  it  is  not  without  grace, 
the  blood  of  Christ,  his  death,  repentance, 
confession,  etc. 

It  is  precisely  like  this :  a  man  once 
showed  another  gentleman  and  myself  a 
field  of  corn,  saying,  "  This  ground  raised 
seventy-five  bushels  of  corn  to  the  acre." 
Presently,  he  showed  a  horse,  saying, 
"  This  raised  that  corn,"  pointing  to  the 
same  corn.  In  a  few  minutes,  he  showed 
118  a  plow,  saying,  "This  plow  raised  that 
corn  you  saw."  Before  we  walked  into  his 
house,  he  pointed  to  his  sons,  saying, 
"  These  boys  raised  that  corn  you  saw." 
How  is  all  this  ?  It  is  a  plain  matter. 
When  the  ground  was  the  subject  of  con- 
versation, he  ascribed  the  work  of  produ- 
cing the  corn  to  the  ground,  knowing  that 
we  would  understand  that  a  horse,  j^low, 
and  some  body  to  plow,  had  been  employed. 
But  when  we  were  gone  from  the  ground, 
and  the  horse  became  the  subject  of  con- 
versation,  he   ascribed   the   work   to    the 


JUSTIFICATION.  145 

horse,  knowing  that  the  balance  would  be 
understood,  and  so  in  the  case  of  the  j)low 
and  the  boys.  In  precisely  the  same  way, 
when  the  Lord  is  speaking  of  grace,  he 
ascribes  the  work  to  it,  and  in  the  same 
way,  when  he  is  upon  the  theme  of  faith, 
he  ascribes  salvation  to  it — not  with  the  in- 
tention that  the  word  "only"  shall  be 
added,  but  with  the  understanding  that 
every  other  part  be  in  its  place. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  FIFTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  Respected  Hearers: 

While  1  regret  the  spirit  manifested  by 
the  gentleman  in  his  last  speech,  I  am  glad 
he  begins  to  feel  the  necessity  of  stirring 
up  his  strength  and  of  doing  something  to 
keep  up  the  appearance  of  opposition.  I 
am  astonished  at  the  perversity  of  intellect 
that  has  betrayed  him  into  such  absurd  j)o- 
sitions  in  regard  to  the  different  senses  in 
which  the  word  justification  occurs  in  the 
Scriptures.  In  my  first  speech,  with  the 
avowed  purpose  of  avoiding  confusion,  and 
enabling  us  all  to  keep  the  precise  issue  be- 
fore us,  I  distinguished  between  the  differ- 
ent justifications,  and  showed  you  to  which 
the  Article  before  us  relates,  and  now  the 
gentleman  represents  me  as  yielding  to  him 
on  three  points  !  This  he  calls  debating  ! 
He  says  I  "evaded"  debating  justification 
in  three  senses  !     But  for  the  deep  confu- 

10 


146  DEBATE   ON 

sion  and  disappointment  that  presses  liim 
down,  lie  would  know  better  than  to  expose 
himself  in  this  way.  He  told  you  I  assign- 
ed no  reason  for  confining  the  debate  to  jus- 
tification in  one  sense;  but  there  is  not  a 
man  of  you  that  does  not  know  that  I  did 
assign  a  "reason"  over  and  over  again. 
The  simple  and  only  "reason"  is,  that  there 
is  no  other  justification  contemplated  in 
the  Article.  1  have  invited  him  over  and 
over  again  to  show  that  my  interpretation 
of  the  Article  is  wrong,  but  he  has  not  ven- 
tured the  attempt,  he  has  not  dared  do  it, 
and  will  not,  unless  it  be  in  his  closing 
speech,  when  I  have  no  chance  to  reply. 
His  sneering  allusions  to  the  mourners,  and 
to  praying  for  sinners,  were  not  only  out  of 
place,  irrelevant  and  uncalled  for,  but  indic- 
ative of  a  spirit  that  no  good  man  can  en- 
vy. I  have  more  respect  for  my  church 
than  to  defend  her  against  suck  assaults ! 
He  would  have  you  believe  that  we  have 
no  place  nor  use  for  repentance,  confession, 
baptism,  and  obedience,  in  our  theology; 
but  he  will  not  convince  any  one  of  this. 
"While  we  do  not,  like  him,  confound  the 
means  of  justification,  with  the  condition  or 
receiving  cause,  we  insist  upon  each  and 
every  part  of  the  divine  requirements, 
without  confusing  them.  We  find  a  place 
for  prayer,  for  repentance,  for  baj)tism  and 
for  obedience;  we  attribute  to  each  its  own 
importance  and  its  own  work  ;  and  if  Mr. 
T".  would  learn  to  do  the  same,  he  would 


JTTSTiriCATION.  14f 

save  himself  the  mortification  of  trying  to 
maintain  such  crnde,  ill-digested,  and  con- 
tradictory notions  as  he  has  advanced  to- 
day. No  sinner  was  ever  pardoned  with- 
out repentance ;  no  sinner  ever  repented 
without  prayer  and  confession;  this  is  all 
true,  and  as  clearly  my  position,  and  much 
more  consistently  so,  than  it  is  Mr.  F.'s 
But  what  is  all  that  to  the  issue  before  us? 
Are  we  talking  about  a  faith  that  excludes 
repentance,  confession,  or  prayer?  Mr. 
Franklin  is,  but  I  am  not,  and  the  proposi- 
tion before  us  does  not.  He  is  away  from 
the  subject — far  away. 

There  is  a  faith  which  is  common  to 
wicked  men  and  devils.  St.  James  spoke 
distinctly  of  that  faith,  when  he  said  faith 
is  dead,  being  alone.  It  is  the  mere  assent 
of  the  mind,  that  does  not  affect  the  heart 
nor  control  the  life.  Such  a  faith  is  of  no 
value  in  itself.  It  precedes  repentance,  ex- 
ists without  prayer,  and  produces  no  con- 
fession. It  is  the  faith  Mr.  F.  advocates, 
and  he  seems  to  be  strangely  averse  to 
knowing  any  thing  about  any  other  faith. 
He  calls  our  attempts  to  impress  his  mind 
with  the  idea  that  there  is  a  faith  of  the 
heart,  which  grows  out  of  true  penitence 
before  the  Lord,  nothing  but  "mystifica- 
tion." This  faith  which  precedes  repent- 
ance, and  fails  to  afl:ect  the  heart,  is  dead, 
being  alone.  This  was  the  fault  in  the 
faith  of  the  "  chief  rulers  "  who  believed, 
and  would  not  confess  Christ,  through  fear 


148  DEBATE    ON 

of  the  Pharisees.  It  was  of  the  head  and 
not  of  the  heart.  I  thus  answer  the  "ques- 
tions "  proposed  in  my  friend's  last  speech, 
and  reply  to  all  he  said  touching  John  xii. 
42.  He  quoted  John  i.  11-12.  It  teaches 
that  men  are  made  "  children  of  Grod  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  It  does  not  say 
they  were  believers  an  hour  before  they 
were  made  children.  So  also  John  xx.  30- 
31.  "  That,  believing,  you  might  have  life 
through  his  name."  This  teaches  that  life 
through  Christ,  is  by  "believing."  But  he 
emphasizes  through  his  name,  as  though  that 
meant  through  baptism ;  but  through  his 
name  is  through  himself.  Baptism  is  not 
mentioned  in  either  passage.  It  is  by  faith 
in  the  name  or  person  of  Christ.  Mr.  F. 
cannot  torture  these  Scriptures  into  any 
other  meaning.  But  the  faith  here  men- 
tioned is  the  true  faith.  It  works  by  love 
and  purifies  the  heart.  It  is  a  faith  which 
is  not  dead,  and  therefore  not  alone.  But 
every  one  who  has  this  faith,  receives  Christ 
and  is  made  a  child  of  God  by  faith.  All 
such  receive  power  to  become  what  they 
were  not  before — the  children  of  G-od.  That 
is,  what  they  were  not  before  they  believed. 
This  is  by  faith  and  not  by  baptism.  Paul 
says  it  is  by  faith.  (Gal.  iii.  26.)  When  a 
man  "  believes  with  the  heart  unto  righteous- 
ness,^^ he  is  justified  ;  then  "  confession  is 
made  with  the  mouth  unto  salvation;"  but 
the  faith  of  the  heart  is  the  only  receiving 
cause  of  justification.    He  that  believeth  is 


JUSTIFICATION.  149 

not  condemned  for  a  single  moment.  His 
condemnation  ceases  sooner  than  my  friend 
could  make  ready  to  immerse  him. 

Mr.  Franklin  not  only  confounds  the 
true  and  the  false  faith,  but  he  confounds 
the  means  with  the  condition  of  justification. 
This  I  have  shown  before,  but  as  he  per- 
sists in  doing  it,  I  will  persist  in  exposing 
it.  Wesley  says,  "  Baptism  administered 
to  real  penitents  is  both  a  means  and  seal  of 
pardon  ;"  but  did  he  say  it  was  the  condition 
of  pardon  ?  JSTever !  Mr.  Wesley  knew 
better.  He  knew  the  •  difference  between 
a  means  of  pardon  and  tlie  condition  of 
justification,  whether  Mr.  F.  does  or  not. 
Thus  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  those  "  real 
penitents,"  not  yet  genuine  believers,  as 
my  friend  claims,  were  commanded  to  re- 
pent and  be  baptized  as  a  very  useful  means 
of  pardon,  but  their  faith  was  the  only  con- 
dition, the  only  thing  in  itself  indispensa- 
ble to  their  justification.  But  those  Gen- 
tiles in  the  house  of  Cornelius  were  also 
real  penitents.  They  were  justified  while 
Peter  yet  preached  the  word.  That  preach- 
ing was  a  means  of  justification,  but  not  the 
condition,  not  the  receiving  cause.  They 
were  commanded  to  be  baptized,  not  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  as  were  the  penitents 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  hut  because  they 
had  already  received  the  Holy  Ghost !  In  one 
case  baptism  was  a  means  of  pardon,  in  the 
other  it  was  not;  but  in  neither  case  was  it 
a  condition.     Hence,   baptism   may  come 


150  '  DEBATE    ON 

before  or  after  pardon-^before  or  after  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  we  have  plain  ex- 
amples of  both  ;  but  no  man  living  will 
ever  show  it  to  be  a  condition  of  justifica- 
tion. That  is  what  can  not  be  done. 
,  Mr.  F.  wishes  to  know  where  I  learned 
that  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  justified  before  he 
was  baptized.  I  learned  it  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  ix.  17,  18.  The  scales  fell 
from  his  eyes  and  he  received  sight — was 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  hefore  he  v:as 
haptized.  The  "a/?  things  "  upon  which  Mr. 
F;  dwelt,  which  were  appointed  for  him  to 
do,  relate  not  to  what  he  was  to  do  in  order 
to  justification  merely,  as  Mr.  F.  imagines, 
but  to  all  things  appointed  for  him  to  do 
in  after  life,  as  an  Apostle  and  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ.  He  could,  emhIematicaUf/, 
wash  away  his  sins,  calling  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  after  justification,  just  as  well 
and  just  as  consistently  as  before  it ;  and 
no  man,  not  even  Mr.  F.  himself,  will  pre- 
tend that  water  literally  washed  away  his 
gins. 

I  come  next  to  the  case  of  the  Corinth- 
ians. Mr.  F.  thinks  Paul  did  not  suppose 
a  case  for  illustration.  "  This,"  he  ex- 
claims, "is  a  likely  affair,  truly  I"  Then 
he  believes  that  some  of  those  Corinthians 
did  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of 
angels,  and  had  not  charity ;  that  they  did 
have  the  gift  of  prophecy,  understand  all 
mysteries,  have  all  hnowledye,  and  all  faith, 
so  as  to  remove  mountains,  and  yet  had  no 


JUSTIFICATION.  151 

charity !  No  sir ;  this  cannot  be  !  No 
unconverted  man  wrought  a  miracle  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  says,  "No 
man  can  do  a  miracle  in  my  name,_and 
lightly  speak  evil  of  me."  Some  hypocrit- 
ical pretenders  will  come  up  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  with  a  lie  in  their  mouths,  and 
pretend  to  have  cast  out  devils  and  done 
many  wonderful  works  in  his  name  ;  but, 
deceivers  on  earth,  they  will  be  liars  there  I 
The  devil  instigated  unconverted  men  to 
imitate  the  miracles  of  good  men,  as  far  as 
possible  ;  but  Jesus  never  employed  such 
to  confirm  the  truth  of  Christianity.  I 
hope,  for  the  credit  of  the  Christian  relig- 
ion, Mr.  F.  will  review  his  position,  aban- 
don this  monstrous  error,  and  banish  it 
forever  from  him  ;  for,  in  all  kindness  I  tell 
him,  it  leads  to  infidelity,  black  as  mid- 
night !  G-od  gives  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all 
true  believers,  to  witness  to  their  adoption, 
to  comfort,  direct,  and  strengthen  them  in 
their  journey  to  heaven  ;  and,  in  addition 
to  this,  he  gave  to  some  of  the  primitive 
Christiana  power  to  perform  miracles,  to 
prophesy,  to  speak  with  tongues,  etc.,  for 
the  confirmation  and  edification  of  the 
church  ;  but  to  say  he  gave  these  extraor- 
dinary gifts  to  any  who  had  not  the  ordin- 
ary gifts,  is  untrue,  absurd,  preposterous  I 
The  Corinthian,  no  doubt,  set  too  much 
store  by  the  "  gifts,"  and  began  to  under- 
value the  "graces;"  but  Paul  would  have 
them    value    both    as    they   ought.      The 


152  DEBATE    ON 

*'  gifts  "  were  important,  but  tbey  were  "to 
fail;"  they  were  not  to  be  expected  alwaya 
in  the  churcb  ;  but  the  "  graces  "  were  to 
remain.  Charity  never  faileth.  Y/ill  Mr. 
F.  look  at  this  ?  He  represents  Paul  as 
speaking  of  a  man  with  faith  alone,  and 
yet  possessing  all  faitli,  all  knowledge  and 
supernatural  gifts  !  Such  terrible,  terrible 
confusion,  I  have  never  seen  !  The  gen- 
tleman calls  my  allusion  to  Simon,  who 
wished  to  purchase  the  "gift"  with  money, 
an  "  angry  fling,"  and  then  asks  if  he  was 
justified.  If  his  faith  was  genuine,  he  was 
justified  ;  but  there  is  ground  for  question- 
ing the  soundness  of  his  faith.  At  any 
rate,  he  was  not  authorized  to  work  mira- 
cles by  the  Holy  SjDirit ;  neither  was  any 
other  unconverted  man.  But,  strange  as 
it  may  seem,  I  venture  the  prediction  that 
Mr.  P.  will  take  the  ground  that  the  said 
Simon  was  justified.  I  know  not  whether 
he  was  or  not,  nor  does  it  affect  my  cause 
one  way  or  the  other  ;  but  Mr.  P.  will  find 
the  laboring  oar  in  his  hand  in  relation  to 
this  case,  after  awhile.  Mr.  P.  says,  "  Mir- 
acles confirmed  the  mission  of  Christ,  of 
the  Apostles,  the  gospel  and  the  church  ;" 
and  I  agree  well  with  this,  but  ask  him  to 
tell  us  how  miracles  could  do  this,  if  they 
could  ever  be  wrought  by  other  than  good 
converted  men  ?  They  confirmed  the  mis- 
sion of  the  Apostles,  by  proving  them  to 
be  men  of  Grod — men  of  true  faith,  accepted 
and    apj)roved    of   Pleaven.     I,   therefore, 


J  USTilHCATlON.  153 

without  any  fear  of  issue  with  the  Apos- 
tle, hold  fast  the  position,  "that  no  man 
was  ever  endowed  with  the  miracle-work- 
ing power  of  the  Holy  G-host,  according  to 
the  promise  of  the  Scrij)tures,  without  be- 
ing justified." 

iSTow  I  notice  again  my  friend's  charge, 
that  the  Discipline  perverts  the  words  of 
Jesus,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Therefore,  being  "  born  again,"  in  my 
friend's  estimation,  is  a  condition  of  justifi- 
cation ;  for  he  makes  entering  the  kingdom 
one  with  being  justified.  But  he  has  read 
his  Bible  to  little  effect,  who  does  not  know 
that  this  is  false.  Men  are  justified  in  order 
that  they  may  enter  the  kingdom.  Justifi- 
cation tali:es  away  the  legal  hindrances,  and 
renders  it  possible  for  man  to  enter  the 
kingdom.  Further,  justification,  in  point 
of  fact,  precedes  the  new  birth.  It  tran- 
spires in  the  mind  of  Grod,  and  then  the 
new  birth  is  effected  in  the  heart  of  man. 
In  this  whole  passage  there  is  but  one  neto 
hirth  mentioned.  To  be  born  again,  is  to 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit.  The 
water  is  the  emblem,  and  not  the  condition, 
of  the  Spirit's  influence  upon  the  soul. 
Hence  Alexander  Campbell  says  that  bap- 
tism "is  hut  the  symhol  of  the  transition,  in- 
ward and  spiritual,  by  which  our  souls  are 
bathed  in  that  ocean  of  love  which  purifies 
our  persons,  and  makes  them  one  with  the 
Lord."     But  Mr.  F.  will  probably  say  Mr. 


154  DEBATE    ON 

Campbell  was  c^nilty  of  "mystification,"  in 
talking  about  the  "  symbol !"  The  gentle- 
man has  been  using  the  Englishman's 
Greek  Concordance,  and  found  out  that  if 
antliropos  is  not  in  the  text,  the  Greek  par- 
ticle, "  tis,"  is  there,  and  now  he  says  it  is 
properly  translated  man.  I  know  the 
clause,  as  translated,  gives  a  correct  sense  ; 
for  the  expression,  except  any  one,  means  ex- 
cept  a  man — the  word  man  not  applying  ex- 
clusively to  a  grown  person  of  the  mascu- 
line gender,  but  generically  to  individuals 
of  the  human  species  ;  yet  if  Mr.  F.  believes 
that  "  tis  "  is  a  proper  word  for  man,  or  at 
all  synonymous  with  anthropos,  he  is  hope- 
lessly in  the  dark.  As  to  applying  the  text 
to  infants,  I  remark  that  any  one  reading 
the  service  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  can 
see  that  the  administration  proceeds  on  the 
supposition  that  the  infant  will  grow  up, 
embrace  the  gospel  and  become  a  lively 
and  faithful  follower  of  Christ.  This  will 
explain  the  application  of  this  language, 
the  prayer  offered  for  them  and  all  that  to 
which  my  friend  objects.  He  has  tried  to 
pervert  the  Discipline,  and  has  succeeded 
in  proving  that  he  does  not  understand  it. 
Baptism,  whether  administered  in  infancy 
or  not,  is  administered  once  for  life  ;  it  is, 
therefore,  appropriate  to  embrace,  in  the 
prayer  offered  on  the  occasion,  matters  per- 
taining to  the  whole  future  of  the  candi- 
date. 

"  I  must  now  take  the  ^ivorthy  gentleman 


JUSTinCATION.  155 

"back  to  Abraham  once  more."  I  have 
shown  clearly,  and  beyond  dispute,  that 
Abraham  teas  justified  lohen  lie  believed  God^ 
and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness. 
When  was  this  ?  Long  before  Isaac  was 
born !  Was  Abraham  a  righteous  man,  and 
a  believer  in  God's  promise,  for  a  single 
day  before  he  was  justified  ?  Preposterous ! 
Mr.  F.  makes  light  of  it  that  I  go  to  Abra- 
hajn  for  theexample  of  a  justified  sinner.  Was 
he  never  a  sinner?  Was  he  an  "old  saint" 
before  he  was  justified  ?  Was  he  an  ".old 
saint"  before  he  believed  God?  I  care  not 
how  early  Abraham  believed  God,  nor  how 
he  had  been  counted  righteous,  when  he  of- 
fered his  son  upon  the  altar  ;  but  I  do  con- 
tend that  he  was  "justified  "  at  the  very 
time  he  believed  God;  and  no  man  was 
ever  "  accounted  righteous  "  who  was  not 
justified.  When  God  made  promise  to 
Abraham  that  he  should  have  an  heir,  and 
a  seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  it  is  said  that 
then,  before  Isaac  was  born^  "  he  believed  in 
the  Lord,  and  he  accounted  it  to  him  for 
righteousness ;"  Gen.  xv.  6.  Abraham  was 
circumcised  before  Isaac  was  born  ;  but  he 
was  justified  by  faith  before  he  was  circum- 
cised, for  "  he  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  which  he  had,  being  jQi  uncircum- 
cised;"  Eom.  iv.  11.  "  Cometh  this  bless- 
edness upon  the  circumcision  only,  or  upon 
the  uncircumeision  also?  For  wo  say  that 
faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  right- 


156  DEBATE    ON 

eousness.  How  was  it,  then,  reckoned? 
when  he  was  in  circumcision,  or  in  iincir- 
cumcision?"  Here  is  the  precise  question 
between  Mr.  F.  and  myself.  Mr.  F.  says  it 
was  not  until  he  offered  Isaac  upon  the  al- 
tar. That  was  some  twenty  years  after  he 
was  circumcised.  But  Paul  answers,  "Not 
in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircumcision ;" 
Rom.  iv.  9,  10.  Here  Mr.  F.  ought  to  sur- 
render. Abraham  was  justified  before 
Isaac  was  born.  There  is  no  use,  Mr.  F., 
in  disputing  it  any  longer  !  From  the  time 
Abraham  first  believed  G-od,  he  was  justi- 
fied ;  and  ever  after,  wherever  he  received 
from  G-od  a  promise  and  believed  it,  be 
received  some  fresh  token  of  acceptance; 
and  wherever  he  received  a  command  from 
God  and  obeyed  it,  he  received  renewed  as- 
surance of  divine  approval.  Hence,  the 
fact  that  he  was  justified  when  he  offered 
Isaac,  does  not  prove  tbat  he  was  never 
justified  before ;  and  the  Scriptures  posi- 
tively affirm  that  he  was  justified  before. 
]!!^ow,  how  does  my  friend  look  standing  up 
here  and  contradicting  St.  Paul,  by  af- 
firming that  Abraham  was  not  justi- 
fied at  the  time  he  was  first  accounted  a 
righteous  man  ?  "If  he  could  blush  on  ac- 
count of  defeat" — would  not  his  crimsoned 
face  proclaim  his  consciousness  of  failure? 
But  I  am  not  through  yet.  He  asserts  that 
James  speaks  of  the  same  justification,  or 
of  justification  in  the  same  sense  with  St. 
Paul — thus  arraying  these  Apostles  against 


JUSTIFICATION.  157 

each  other.  But  he  denies  this  conse- 
quence, and  tries  to  evade  it  by  talking 
about  law  works  and  gospel  Avorks.  I  ex- 
ploded this  sophism,  by  exposing  the  ab- 
surdity of  his  notions  of  law  works.  The 
law  is  that  which  the  sinner  transgresses — 
which  condemns  the  guilty — which  says 
"thou  shalt  not  covet" — the  only  law  that 
measures  our  obligations,  that  binds  us  in 
allegiance  to  the  throne  of  Grod,  and  pre- 
scribes our  duty  to  all.  We  obey  it  when 
we  obey  the  gospel  and  love  Grod  supreme- 
ly, and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves.  But  we 
have  no  justification  by  it ;  for  we  can  only 
obey  it  by  the  aid  of  divine  grace.  Mr.  F. 
calls  this  "mystification,"  and  refuses  to 
look  at  it,  after  making  the  distinction  him- 
self! I  also  called  for  a  definition  of  his 
gospel  works.  He  passes  it  in  silence ! 
But  while  I  hold  him  prisoner,  I  will  scat- 
ter this  subterfuge  to  the  four  winds.  By 
gospel  works  he  must  mean  repentance,  con- 
fession, and  baptism,  as  conditions  of  par- 
don, or  he  means  nothing  relevant  to  our 
discussion.  But  what  kind  of  works  does 
James  talk  about  ?  Such  gospel  works  as 
]\Ir.  F.  insists  upon  ?  He  never  mentions 
them  !  Hear  him  :  "If  a  brother  or  sister 
be  naked,  or  destitute  of  daily  food,  and  • 
one  of  you  say  unto  them.  Depart  in  peace, 
be  ye  warmed  and  filled  ;  notwithstanding 
ye  give  them  not  those  things  which  are 
needful  for  the  body;  what  doth  it  profit  ?" 
Here  is  the  duty  to  feed  the  hungry  and 


158  DEBATE  ON 

clothe  the  naked — a  duty  incTimhent  all 
throiio'h  life — but  not  a  word  about  any 
thiijg-  Mr.  F.  calls  gospel  work,  and  insists 
upon  a  condition  ot*  pardon. 

"  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified 
by  works,  when  he  offered  Isaac  his  son 
upon  the  altar  ?"  Is  this  what  my  friend 
calls  gospel  work  ?  Is  this  the  condition 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ?  "  Likewise  also 
was  not  Eahab  the  harlot  justified  by 
works,  when  she  had  received  the  messen- 
gers, and  had  sent  them  out  another  way?" 
Will  my  friend  call  this  gospel  work?  Can 
he  see  any  thing  like  baptism  as  a  condi- 
tion of  forgiveness  of  sins,  in  all  this  ?  It 
is  easy  to  say  that  Paul  talks  of  law  works, 
and  James  of  gospel  w^orks;  but  proving  it, 
or  even  explaining  it,  is  too  much  like 
"mystification!"  for  my  friend  to  attempt 
it.  JSTow  I  submit  that  if  Mr.  F.  does  not 
feel  himself  "  stranded,"  it  is  because  he  is 
not  sensible  of  his  misery  !  Could  Mr.  F. 
speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of  an- 
gels, he  could  not  reconcile  Paul  and  James 
without  admitting  that  Abraham  was  jus- 
tified more  than  once.  This  Mr.  F.  has 
denied.  Paul  says  he  w^as  justified  by  faith, 
without  worJcs,  before  ho  was  circumcised ; 
but  Mr.  F.  says  he  w^as  not !  James  says 
he  was  justified  by  works  when  he  offered 
Isaac ;  to  this  I  agree  with  full  consent; 
but  I  also  agreed  with  St.  Paul,  that  he 
was  justified,  in  another  sense,  long  before. 
I  ask  Mr.  F.  to  stand  up  jind   agree  with 


JUSTIFICATION.  159 

both  these  Apostles  ;  but  his  dogma  of  bap- 
tism in  order  to  pardon,  will  not  permit 
him  to  do  it!  His  creed  blinds  and  betrays 
him  into  this  unenviable  predicament.  But 
for  his  confusion  and  disappointment,  I 
would  now  expect  him  to  yield  the  point, 
and  submit  to  the  gospel  method  of  justifi- 
cation by  grace,  through  faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  When  his  excitement  wears 
off,  and  he  reviews  his  position  in  the  light 
of  the  Bible,  I  shall  expect  him  to  confess 
himself  reproved  and  instructed. 

I  now  close  by  a  brief  summary,  and 
leave  the  subject  with  jon. 

1.  Of  the  four  senses  in  which  men  are 
justified,  I  have  shown  you  that  the  Article 
relates  only  to  justification  in  the  sense  of 
being  "  accounted  righteous."  The  debate 
is  confined  to  this  justification,  not  because 
I  "evaded,"  or  "yielded,"  or  "conceded" 
anything  in  I'egard  to  the  other  uses  of  the 
term,  for  I  took  my  position  in  regard  to 
them  in  my  first  speech,  before  Mr.  F. 
opened  his  mouth,  but  simply  because  it  is 
in  the  Article,  and  the  others  are  not.  The 
vigorous  effort  Mr.  F.  has  made  to  press  in 
other  senses  of  the  word,  has  discovered 
his  extreme  anxiety,  and  deep  consciousness 
of  failure,  unless  he  could  confuse  the  sub- 
ject in  some  way. 

2.  His  positions  in  relation  to  the  differ- 
ent causes  of  justification,  have  been  am- 
biguous, confused  and  contradictory.  He 
either  did  not   understand  himself,  or  was 


160  DEBATE   ON 

afraid  to  venture  out  in  clear  daylight.  I 
have  shown  you  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Article  is,  that  the  grace  of  God  is  the  only 
orighiating  cause,  the  blood  of  Jesus  the 
only  procuring  or  meritorious  cause,  and 
that  faith  is  the  only  receiving  cause. 
From  this  I  have  not  swerved.  The  gen- 
tleman's "corn"  illustration  answers  my 
purpose  very  well.  The  ground  raised  the 
corn — the  horse  raised  the  corn — the  plow 
raised  the  corn — the  hoys  raised  the  corn; 
each  had  a  particular  part  to  perform,  and 
with  respect  to  each  particular  feature  of 
the  work,  it  was  the  ground  only,  the  horse 
only,  the  plow  only,  and  the  boys  only. 
My  friend  will  have  to  go  farther  than  this 
for  an  illustration  that  will  bring  him  out 
of  the  woods  ! 

3.  The  Article  does  not  assert  that  the 
faith  by  which  we  are  justified  is  alone. 
It  implies  repentance  and  obedience  ;  this 
I  granted  from  the  start ;  but  while  it  is 
not  alone  in  the  abstract,  it  is  only  the  faith 
that  apprehends,  receives  and  appropriates, 
the  infinite  merit  of  the  Eedeemer,  to  the 
justification  of  the  sinner.  Hence,  nothing 
else  in  all  the  book  of  G-od,  is  imputed  to 
the  sinner  for  righteousness,  but  faith  only, 
Mr.  F.  is  not  alone  in  this  Hall,  but  he  only 
made  the  last  sj)eech.  And  at  this  point 
he  has  virtually  given  up  the  controversy. 
He  said  all  his  objection  to  the  Article  was 
on  account  of  the  word  "only."  I  made  a 
fair  proposition,  setting  forth  my  willing- 


JUSTIFICATION.  101 

ness  to  admit  that  the  word  "  only  "  ought 
to  be  stricken  out,  if  he  would  show  what 
else  beside  faith  is  imputed   for  righteous- 
ness ;  but  he  has  not  made  the  attempt ! 
Moreover,  he  claimed  that  the  Article  ex- 
cluded the  grace  of  God  and   the   blood  of 
Jesus,  and  by  his  course   confessed  that  if 
it  did  not,  his  opposition  was  a  failure.     I 
showed  that  it  does  not  exclude  these,  but 
assigns  to  both  their  proper  places  in   the 
great  scheme  of  redemption  and  justifica- 
tion ;  but  that  the  idea  of  justification   by 
works  does  exclude  the  grace  of  God.    This 
St.    Paul    boldly   asserts :   "  To   him   that 
worketh,  is    the   reward   not   reckoned  of 
grace,   but   of    debt."      "But   if   it   be   of 
works,  then  is  it  no  more  grace."     ''There- 
fore  it   is    of  faith   that   it    might   be   by 
grace."     Hence,    the   whole   effort   of  my 
friend  has  been  directed  against  this  Apos- 
tle !     In  his  opposition  to  Paul,  he  tried  to 
make  James  affiliate  with   him,  but   failed 
utterly.     Poor  man  !  he  stands  alone,  con- 
fronted by  the  whole  Bible  !     May  his  sor- 
row be  of  a  godly  sort ! 

4.  The  manner  in  which  Mr.  F.  has  res- 
ponded to  my  arguments,  has  been  observ- 
ed by  you  all.  In  some  instances  he  has 
ventured  no  reply,  and  in  others,  he  has 
only  aimed  to  involve  me  in  a  similar  diffi- 
culty with  himself.  This  was  particularly 
the  case,  in  his  strictures  on  my  argument 
from  depravity.  It  was  all  he  aimed  at ! 
Sometimes  he  quoted  detached   sentences, 

11 


162  DEBATE    ON 

and  perverted  my  meaning,  as  in  his 
repeated  charges  rung  on  the  words,  "  faith 
does  the  work — it  justifies  ;"  but  he  has 
uniformly  omitted  quoting  or  noticing  the 
Scriptures  on  which  my  arguments  were 
founded  !  True,  he  said  some  of  my  argu- 
ments contained  nothing  but  "  assump- 
tion," and  complained  about  the  "joy " 
that  surrounded  him,  and  obstructed  his 
vision,  but  his  futile  attempts  at  reply, 
coming  from  a  man  of  his  reputed  powers, 
prove  that  my  positions  were  invulnerable. 
5.  The  opposing  arguments  adduced  by 
the  respondent,  have  all  received  due  and 
respectful  consideration  ;  and  they  have  all 
been  shown  to  be  aim^d  at  a  doctrine  not 
before  us,  which  nobody  believes,  but 
which  he  has  diligently  labored  to  force 
upon  the  Article,  against  the  design  of  its 
framers,  against  the  true  import  of  its  lan- 
guage, and  in  spite  of  my  disclaimers,  ad- 
monitions and  rebukes  ;  or  else  they  have 
been  proven  irrelevant,  confused  and  in- 
conclusive. In  his  closing  reply,  he  may 
give  you  a  rehash  of  them  with  all  confi- 
dence, pretending  that  they  have  not  been 
met ;  but  I  have  confidence  that  you  will 
not  forget  how  persistently  he  confounds 
the  means  with  the  condition  of  pardon,  and 
jumbles  togetl^er  the  causes  and  instru- 
mentalities in  a  manner  that  would  not 
honor  the  capacity  of  the  merest  tyro  in 
divinity.  And  yet  he  has  done  the  best 
that  could  be  done  !     lie  is   not  a  novice, 


JUSTIFICATION.         \  lb  J 

but  a  champion — often  the  chosen  cham- 
pion, the  Goliath  of  the  hosts  here  presents  ; 
but  mortal  man  can  not  resist  the  truth 
of  God.  Neither  age,  experience,  learning 
nor  ingenuity,  can  turn  aside  the  smooth 
stones  of  the  infallible  word.  The  dreams 
of  fanaticism  and  prejudices  of  bigotry, 
may  obscure  the  light  for  a  season,  but 
while  reason  keeps  her  throne,  and  mind 
grapples  with  mind,  and  thought  with 
thought,  the  truth  may  enter  the  arena 
without  apphrehension  of  harm. 

1  close  the  discussion  of  this  proposition 
with  full  confidence  that  I  have  maintained 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  held  be- 
fore you  the  only  method  of  the  sinner's 
justification  before  the  Lord.  I  honor 
every  duty  and  every  ordinance  of  the 
Christian  economy,  assigning  to  each  its 
place  and  work,  but  will  not  confuse  and 
confound  them.  A  full  and  careful  survey 
of  our  moral  condition  and  relationships, 
and  a  candid  examination  of  all  Mr.  Frank- 
lin has  been  able  to  say  against  it,  only 
satisfies  me  more  and  more,  that  "We  are 
accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the 
merit  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ 
by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  de- 
servings  ;"  and,  feeling  fully  persuaded  of 
this  doctrine,  I  cannot  doubt  that  its  moral 
effects  are  truly  set  forth  in  the  clause 
which  says,  "  Wherefore,  thai  we  are  justi- 
fied by  faith  only,  is  a  most  wholesome 
doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort." 


164  /  DEBATE   ON 

MR.  FRANKLIN'S  FIFTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

We  have  now  heard  what  the  worthy 
gentleman  could  sa}^  in  defense  of  justifica- 
tion by  fjiith  only.  Our  rules  do  not  allow 
me  to  introduce  any  new  matter  in  my 
closing  speech.  I  will,  therefore,  spend  my 
half  hour  in  summing  up  and  re-stating  the 
argument.  The  first  thing  I  shall  attend 
to,  shall  be  his  attempt  to  evade  the  argu- 
ment : 

1.  Our  correspondence  shows  that  I  only 
proposed  to  discuss  the  statement  follow- 
ing :  "  Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by 
faith  only,  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine 
and  very  full  of  comfort."  He  understood 
me  in  this,  for  he  explicitly  mentions,  in 
one  of  his  letters,  that  I  assailed  "  a  part 
of  the  Ninth  Article,"  and  proposed  to 
accommodate  me.  But  "when  he  attempted 
to  accommodate  me,  he  did  it  by  present- 
ing the  whole  of  the  Article  for  me  to  deny, 
in  the  place  of  what  he  knew  I  had  assailed. 
This  he  did  to  have  something  bearing,  at 
least,  some  semblance  to  the  truth. 

2.  His  second  eff'ort  was  to  avoid  the 
question  in  any  sense  in  which  "  we  are 
justified  before  God,"  but  one — the  sense  of 
pardon  in  conversion.  This  he  did  by  his 
unsupported  assertion,  that  that  was  the 
only  sense  meant  by  the  Discipline.  This, 
any  person  could  see,  was  without  any 
foundation,  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  Dis- 
cipline confining  the  Article  to  justification 


JUSTIFICATION.  165 

in  any  one  sense  more  than  another.  Jus- 
tification, in  every  sense,  is  through  the 
merit"  of  Christ ;  and  it  is  juslidcation 
through  the  merit  of  Christ  we  are  speak- 
ing of.  The  Article  relates  to  justification 
in  every  sense  in  which  "  we  are  justified  " 
through  the  merit  of  Christ ;  and  there  is  nd 
sense  in  which  loe  are  justijied,  that  is  not 
through  the  merit  of  Christ.  In  this  attempt 
at  evasion,  he  failed,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  lost  the  argument  in  every  sense, 
according  to  his  own  admission,  except 
one. 

3.  His  third  attempt  at  evasion,  was  his 
assertion,  that  justification  by  faith  only 
was  not  justification  hj  faith  alone.  I  have 
demanded  of  him,  in  vain,  to  show  what 
the  word  "  only  "  means  in  the  proposi- 
tion, or  what  office  it  performs,  if  it  does 
not  mean  singly,  or  alone  ;  or  if  it  does 
not  exclude  every  thing  else.  Has  he  ever 
shown  what  that  word  means,  or  what 
office  it  performs,  if  it  does  not  exclude 
every  thing  else?  He  has  not,  and  no 
man  living  can.  Some  of  the  time,  he  in- 
terprets the  Article  precisely  as  if  the  word 
"  only  "  were  not  in  it,  and  admits  that  it  is 
not  by  faith  only  that  we  are  justified,  but 
it  is  by  faith,  with  the  grace  of  God,  the 
blood  of  Christ,  repentance,  confession,  etc. 
But  then,  again,  he  turns  the  other  side  of 
his  face  to  us,  and  gives  it  the  exclusive 
sense,  or  lets  it  have  its  legitimate  mean- 
ing, and  makes  it  exclude  everything  else — 


166  DEBATE    ON 

makes  faith,  and  faith  only,  do  the  work^- 
justify.  Such  has  been  his  unenviable 
position. 

I.  I  am  now  ready  to  look  at  his  argu- 
ments. His  first  argument  is  from  the 
Scripture  representations  of  human  deprav- 
ity. The  argument,  if  there  was  anything 
in  this  point  that  could  be  called  argument, 
is  that  man,  being  depraved,  cannot  justify 
himself,  or  do  any  thing  that  will  justify 
him — that  there  cannot  be  any  merit  in 
any  thing  that  he  can  do,  and  that  he 
must  be  justified  through  the  merit  of 
Christ  alone.  This  sounds  very  well ;  but 
what  now  is  his  deduction?  That  man  is 
justified  by  faith  only!  But  what  is  faith  ? 
Is  it  the  merit  of  Christ?  It  is  the  act  of 
the  creature — the  depraved,  unconverted 
creature  !  Is  there  any  merit  in  the  act  of 
the  creature?  ]^o ;  the  merit  is  in  Christ 
alone.  Faith  is  a  work.  "  This  is  the  ^oorh 
of  Grod,  that  you  believe,"  said  Jesus.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  loorh  of  faith."  Faith,  then, 
is  a  iDork,  the  act  of  the  creature.  This  act 
of  a  depraved  creature  has  no  merit  in  it — 
this  work  of  the  creature  has  no  merit  in 
it  to  save  a  sinner,  or  justify,  any  more 
than  repentance,  confession,  or  any  thing 
else  the  Lord  requires  the  creature  to  do. 
Faith  does  not  do  the  work ;  it  does  not 
justify,  but  is  simply  a  means  through 
which  Grod  prepares  the  heart  for  justifica- 
tion. It  j)ardons  no  man's  sins,  but  pre- 
pares the  hearts  of  men  for  pardon,  as  re- 


JUSTIFICATION.  167 

pentance  prepares  the  life,  or  character,  of 
men  for  pardon.  His  first  argument,  then, 
is  no  argument  at  all,  and  proves  nothing. 
II.  His  second  argument  is  founded  on 
those  Scriptures  which  ascribe  the  work  of 
salvation  to  the  grace  of  God.  This  is  the 
most  singular  argument  I  ever  knew.  To 
state  it  in  the  most  simple  form,  it  amounts 
to  this :  The  Scriptures  say,  "  Salvation 
is  by  grace  ;"  therefore,  it  is  by  faith  only ! 
I  know  that  salvation  is  by  grace,  through 
faith  ;  but  not  by  grace  only,  or  faith  only. 
I  stated,  in  my  last  speech  before  this,  that 
salvation  is  by  the  goodness  of  God,  the 
love  of  God,  the  grace  of  God  ;  the  mission 
of  Christ,  his  blood  ;  the  mission  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Holy  Spirio ;  by  the  word 
spoken,  by  faith  in  Christ,  repentance,  con- 
fession, calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  and 
by  baptism.  The  goodness  of  God  prompted 
him  to  save  man.  His  love  moved  him  to 
the  great  work  ;  his  grace  to  man  appeared, 
or  his  favor,  in  the  Lord  becoming  poor 
that  we  through  his  poverty  might  be  rich. 
The  mission  of  Jesus  prepared  the  way  for 
carrying  tlie  grand  scheme  into  operation. 
In  his  death,  he  shed  his  blood  to  purge  us 
from  sin.  The  Apostle's  mission  was  indis- 
pensable in  the  great  work.  The  mission 
of  the  Spirit  was  indispensable  to  inspiring 
the  Apostles  and  preaching  the  word 
through  them. 

■    The   word    has    its   place   in  the   grand 
scheme.     It  must  be  spoken  that  man  may 


168  DEBATE   ON 

hear  and  believe.  But  the  goodness  of 
Grod,  his  love,  his  grace,  the  mission  of 
Christ,  his  blood,  the  mission  of  the  Apos- 
tles, the  work  of  the  Spirit,  inspiring  them, 
and  the  word  spoken,  will  all  do  poor 
fallen  man  no  good,  if  he  does  not  believe, 
repent,  confess  Christ,  and  call  on  the  Lord. 
'No  grace  of  God,  nor  merit  of  Christ,  will 
save  a  man  who  does  not  believe  ;  and  no 
believing  will  save  a  man  who  does  not 
repent.  Where  is  his  second  argument, 
founded  upon  salvation  by  grace  ?  It  is  no 
argument  at  all. 

III.  His  third  argument  is  founded  upon 
those  Scriptures  that  ascribe  salvation  to 
the  death  of  Christ.  This  argument  is 
fully  answered  in  the  remarks  just  made. 
The  death  of  Christ  is  indispensable,  but 
we  are  not  saved  by  the  death  of  Christ 
alone.  The  death  of  Christ  will  save  no 
man  who  does  not  believe  ;  or  believes,  and 
does  not  repent.  But  his  logic  is  all  of  the 
same  sort.  It  is  this,  I  suppose  :  We  are 
said  to  be  saved  by  the  death  of  Christ; 
therefore,  we  are  saved  by  faith  only.  All 
he  has  said  on  this  point,  is  simply  talk, 
and  no  argument  in  it. 

IV.  His  fourth  argument  is  simply  the 
naked  and  unsupported  assertion,  that 
faith  brings  the  soul  into  contact  with  the 
blood  of  Christ,  and  renders  that  blood 
efficacious  to  the  removal  of  guilt.  If  he 
were  aiming  to  show  that  faith  is  indis- 
pensable, and  I  were  denying  it,  he  might 


JUSTIFICATION.  169 

find  an  argument  here.  But  tbat  is  not 
the  state  of  the  case.  I  am.  fully  aware 
that  men  must  believe,  to  come  to  the 
blood  of  Christ ;  but  it  is  as  indispensable 
that  they  repent  and  confess  Christ,  as 
that  they  believe.  Belief  alone  will  not 
bring  them  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  else 
those  Jews  who  believed  on  him,  and  would 
not  confess  him,  would  have  been  justified. 
This  argument  we  have  found  to  be  no 
argument  at  all,  and  to  prove  nothing. 

V.  His  fiifth  argument  is  drawn  from 
those  Scriptures  which  speak  of  the  impu- 
tation of  faith  for  righteousness.  This  ar- 
gument I  have  taken  completely  out  of  his 
hands,  in  that  he  has  confined  the  justifi- 
cation in  debate  to  the  pardon  or  justifica- 
tion of  the  sinner  in  conversion.  His  ex- 
ample given  of  faith,  being  imputed  for 
righteousness,  is  the  case  of  Abraham,  who 
believed  God  when  he  made  the  promise  to 
him,  when  he  was  about  an  hundred  years 
old,  who  had  been  a  righteous  man  many 
long  years  before  this,  and  was  a  righteous 
man  at  this  time.  This  justification  was, 
therefore,  the  justification  of  a  righteous 
man,  in  the  sense  of  approval,  whicii  he 
admits  to  be  by  works,  and  not  by  faith 
only.  The  apostle  James  refers  to  the 
identical  same  faith  of  Abraham,  and  shows 
that  works  wrought  with  his  faith,  and  by 
works  his  faith  was  made  perfect.  In 
making  this  an  example  of  the  justification 
he  is  debating  about — in  refuting  him  at 


170  tJEBATE   ON 

this  point,  I  refute  his  whole  theory.  The 
very  case  he  has  taken  for  an  example,  I 
have  shown,  beyond  doubt,  not  to  be  by 
faith  only,  but  by  works,  which  wrought 
with  his  faith,  and  by  which  his  faith  was 
made  perfect.  He  was  not  justified  by  the 
faith  alone,  nor  the  works  alone,  but  the 
faith  and  works  jointly  ;  and  the  justifica- 
tion was  not  the  justification  of  a  sinner, 
in  the  sense  of  pardon,  but  the  justification 
of  a  righteous  man,  who  had  been  a  right- 
eous man  more  than  fifty  years,  in  the 
sense  of  approval. 

YI.  His  sixth  argument  is  founded  upon 
the  expression,  "justified  by  faith."  But 
this  I  have  shown  to  be  no  argument  at  all, 
as  no  one  doubts  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith.  I  believe  in  justification  by 
faith  as  much  as  he,  but  I  do  not  believe  in 
his  interpolation,  "  only,"  added  to  the 
word  of  God.  If  that  interpolation  means 
any  thing,  it  is  sinful  to  add  it  to  the  word 
of  Grod.  If  it  does  not  mean  any  thing,  it 
is  useless,  and  he  is  debating  for  nothing. 
But  we  all  know  that  it  does  mean  some- 
thing. He  has  explained  it  to  mean  some- 
thing. He  has  himself  shown  that  its 
office  was  to  exclude  something,  in  his  re- 
ference to  Eomish  traditions.  Such  I  have 
maintained  to  be  its  office.  He  has  shown 
that  he  took  it  in  that  sense,  when  he  said 
that  neither  repentance,  confession  nor  any 
thing  else  but  faith  does  the  work — justi- 
fies.    This,  then,  bears  scarcely   the   sem,- 


JUSTinCATION.  iti 

bl an ce  of  an  argument ;  but  it  is  an  utter 
failure. 

yil.  Mr.  M.'s  seventh  argument  is,  that 
faith  removes  condemnation  from  the  heart. 
Anybody  can  see,  at  a  glance,  that  this  is 
nothing  but  re-stating,  in  a  little  different 
form,  his  argument  founded  upon  justifica- 
tion by  faith.  It  is  jast  as  true,  that  he 
that  repenteth  not  is  condemned,  as  it  is 
that  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned; 
for  he  who  said,  "He  who  cometh  to  God 
must  believe,"  has  said,  "  Except  ye  repent 
ye  shall  perish."  Either  unbelief  or  im- 
penitence will  condemn  a  man,  but  neither 
belief  or  penitence,  alone,  will  justify  a 
man.  His  seventh  argument,  then,  is  no 
argument  at  all,  but  merely  a  rehash  of  the 
sixth  argument. 

VIII.  His  eighth  argument  is nothingbut 
the  unsupported  assertion,  "  that  every  be- 
liever is  in  possession  of  eternal  life."  I 
have  shown  that  the  believer  can  only  have 
eternal  life  prospectively  in  this  Avorld  ;  for 
the  Apostle  promises  to  them  who  seek  for 
glory  and  honor  and  immortality,  eternal 
life;  and  at  the  same  time  the  wicked  shall 
go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  the 
righteous  shall  go  into  life  eternal,  which 
shows  that  they  are  not  in  possession  of 
eternal  life  now.  ISTot  only  so,  but  eternal 
life  is  the  reward  of  the  righteous,  received 
in  the  judgment.  If  eternal  life  is  the  jus- 
tification he  is  maintaining,  as  coming  with- 
in the  scope  of  our  proposition,   it   is   the 


172  DEBATE  ON 

justification  in  the  judgment,  and  he  has 
admitted  that  it  is  not  by  faith  only.  His 
eighth  argument,  therefore,  proves  to  be  no 
argument  at  all.  Thus  ends  his  attempts, 
first  at  evasion  and  then  at  argument.  He 
has  neither  succeeded  in  evading  the  issue, 
nor  proving  his  proposition. 

I.  But  now  for  my  first  argument  against 
his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  onl}'. 
I  have  shown  that  his  Discipline  makes 
baptism  a  means  of  justification  not  only  to 
persons  «w3C0untable,  but  to  infants,  in  the 
following  words:  "  Our  Savior  Christ  saith, 
None  can  enter  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  ex- 
cept he  be  regenerate  and  born  anew  of 
water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  king- 
dom of  God  is  a  state  of  justification,  aud 
the  Discipline  applies  the  words  of  Jesus, 
not  quoted  correctly,  but  corrupted,  as  I 
have  shown,  by  inserting  none  for  man  to 
infants,  and  they  have  thus  perverted  the 
passage  and  make  baptism  a  condition  of 
justification  to  infants;  thus  making  many 
pious  mothers  believe  that,  except  they 
have  their  infants  baptized,  they  cannot  en- 
ter into  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  a  state  of 
justification.  In  praying,  as  he  does,  if  he 
goes  according  to  Discipline,  he  implores 
the  Lord,  when  about  to  baptize  an  infant, 
that  it  "may  receive  that  thing  which,  by 
nature,  it  cannot  have,"  and  that  it  may  bo 
'''' ddivered  from  the  lurath  of  God.^^  In  aj)- 
plying  the  same  words  of  our  Lord — again 
miserably    misquoted — to    adult    persons, 


JUSTIFICATION.  173 

when  baptizing,  they  make  him  teach  that 
none  can  enter  the  kingdoiji  of  God,  or  a 
state  of  justification,  except  "he  be  re- 
generate and  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Thus  the  Discipline  here 
makes  "  born  of  water  "  baptism,  and  thus 
makes  baptism  a  condition  of  justification, 
as  I  shall  show,  the  Lord  permitting,  when 
we  are  upon  our  fourth  proposition,  it  cer- 
tainly is.  I  have  thus  refuted  him  with  his 
own  Discipline,  and  shown  that  justifica- 
tion is  not  by  faith  oiily^  but  by  baptism,  as 
well  as  faith.  From  this  difficulty  he  has 
scarcely  made  the  semblance  of  an  effort  to 
escape. 

II.  My  second  argument  was  founded 
upon  the  unequivocal  statement  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  that  "  baptism  is  both  a  means  and 
a  seal  of  pardon  nor  ;  did  God  ordinarily, 
in  the  primitive  church,  bestow  this  upon 
any,  unless  through  this  means."  Mr.  M. 
has  himself  admitted  that  baptism  is  a 
means  of  salvation,  as  singing,  praying, 
reading  the  Bible,  etc.  Eut  Mr.  Wesley  is 
stronger  than  that ;  he  says  :  "  JSTeither  did 
God  ordinarily  bestow  this  on  any,  unless 
through  this  means."  Again,  he  says:  "As 
it  [baptism]  admits  into  the  church  here, 
so  into  glory  hereafter."  This  is  not  jus- 
tification by  faith  only.  Admitting  into 
the  church,  is  into  a  state  of  justification, 
and  with  him  baptism  admits  into  the 
church.  What  reply  has  he  made  to  this? 
Surely  none  that  deserves  the  name. 


174  DEBATE   ON 

III.  My  third  argument  against  his  doc- 
trine, is  that  th.e  Lord,  in  the  last  commis- 
sion, as  Mark  records  it,  puts  faith  atid 
baptism  both  together,  in  the  same  sen- 
tence,  both  in  order  to  the  same  object. 
That  object  is  salvation  or  justification. 
The  words  I  allude  to,  read  as  follows  :  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved."  Saved,  here,  means  justified  or 
pardoned.  The  Lord  requires  two  things 
to  be  done,  in  order  to  the  same  end  or  ob- 
ject. We  cannot  be  mistaken  about  the-ob- 
ject,  for  my  opponent  admits  that  faith  is  for 
justification.  The  gospel  is  preached  to 
men  that  they  may  believe,  and  he  admits 
that  the  object  of  believing  is  that  they 
be  justified.  It- is  justification,  too,  in  the 
precise  sense  he  admits  to  be  in  contro- 
versy. From  this  there  is  no  escape.  The 
baptism  is  connected,  in  the  same  sentence, 
in  order  to  the  same  object — justification  or 
salvation.  When  you  can  perceive  what 
faith  is  in  order  to,  here,  you  can  see  what 
baptism  is  for.  Both  are  for  the  same 
thing.  The  only  attempt  Mr.  M.  has  made 
to  meet  this,  is  by  asserting  that  salvation 
here  will  be  the  future  salvation.  I  do  not 
deny  that  all  our  acts  of  obedience  look 
forward  ultimately  to  the  eternal  salvation  ; 
but  believing,  repenting,  confessing  and  be- 
ing baptized,  look  immediately  to  present 
justification  or  pardon.  This  commission 
has  reference  immediately  to  remission  of 
sins.     Luke  has  it,  that  "Kopentance  and 


JUSTIFICATION.  175 

remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his 
name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Je- 
rusalem." In  the  commission,  then,  in  the 
place  of  faith  ovly  for  remission  of  sins,  we 
find  repentance  and  baptism  associated  with 
faith,  in  order  to  the  same  thing. 

lY.  My  fourth  argument  againat  his  po- 
sition, is  in  the  unequivocal,  language  of 
Paul:  "Though  a  man  have  all  faith,  so 
that  he  can  remove  mountains,  and  have 
not  love,  he  is  nothing."  This  passage  es- 
tablishes two  points  beyond  all  doubt:  1st, 
That  inasmuch  as  a  inan  may  have  the  gift 
of  prophecy,  understand  all  knowledge, 
and  have  all  faith,  so  that  he  can  remove 
mountains,  and  have  not  love,  he  is  nothing. 
Paith  only  cannot  justif}^  a  man,  for  [Paul 
would  not  have  said  of  a  justified  man,  '■'■He 
is  nothing.''  The  man,  then,  with  all  faith^ 
but  faith  without  love,  or  faith  07ilg,  is  noth- 
ing. Certainly  he  who  is  nothing,  is  not 
justified  in  any  sense.  2nd,  This  passage 
shows,  conclusively,  that  supernatural  gifts 
are  no  evidence  that  he  who  possesses  them 
is  justified ;  for  here  Paul,  in  rebuking  those 
who  abounded  w^ith  supernatural  gifts,  but 
had  gone  to  law  one  with  another,  informs 
them  that  though  they  had  much  greater 
gifts  than  any  of  them  had,  yet,  if  they  had 
not  love,  they  were  nothing.  I  shall  have 
use  for  this  again,  in  another  part  of  our 
debate. 

V.  My  fifth  argument  against  his  doc- 
trine is,  that  I  hav^  produced  persons  men- 


176  DEBATE    ON 

tioned  in  the  word  of  God,  who  believed, 
but  did  not  confess,  and  were  not  justified. 
"  Among  the  chief  rulers  also  many  be- 
lieved on  him  ;  but  because  of  the  Pharisees 
they  did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  be  put 
out  of  the  synagogue ;  for  they  loved  the 
praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of 
God;"  John.xii.  42.  What  think  you  of 
those  faith  alone  Christians,  who  loved  the 
praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of  God? 
Were  they  justified?  There  is  no  escape 
from  this  case,  for  it  is  stated  in  so  many 
words,  that  "they  believed  on  him,"  and 
it  is  evident  that  they  were  not  justified ; 
for  the  Apostle's  language  condemns  them. 
Neither  he,  nor  any  other  man  occupying 
his  position,  can  answer  this.  It  shows, 
beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  justi- 
fication is  not  by  faith  only. 

YI.  My  sixth  argument  against  his  doc- 
trine is,  that  the  holy  Aj)ostle  says  :  "As 
many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
as  many  as  believe  on  his  name;"  John  i. 
12.  This  shows  that  believing  on  his  name 
only,  does  not  constitute  a  son  of  God,  or  jus- 
tify, but  to  those  who  believe  on  God's  name, 
he  gives  power  to  become  what  they  are  not 
before,  or  even  when  they  believe — sons  of 
God.  To  the  same  amount  the  same  writer 
says:  "  These  things  are  written  that  you 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  you  might 
have  life  through  his  name."     The  belief  is 


JUSTIFICATION.  177 

that  he  might  have  (what  he  has  not  now) 
life  through  his  name.  What  reply  has  he 
made  to  ail  this  ?  Nothing  that  meets  the 
Oase.  :•:*{  od  'Mi;  ;:. 

yil.  My  seventh  and  last  argument 
against  his  doctrine  is,  that  he  and  his 
brethren  have  no  intelligible  system  of  con- 
version. They  cannot  show  the  sinner  the 
way  to  God,  or  to  justification.  Hence 
they  have  constructed  a  kind  of  portico 
to  their  church,  into  which  they  receive 
persons  on  trial,  who  have  come  to  them 
honestly  inquiring  the  way  to  justification, 
and  have  failed  to  find  it.  They  have  list- 
ened to  the  preachers,  both  publicly  and 
privately,  but  cannot  find  the  way.  They 
have  come  again  and  again  and  still  failed 
to  find,  and  have  now  joined  on  trial,  with 
the  encouragement  that  maybe  they  may 
find  salvation.  When  did  the  Apostles  put 
poor  souls,  seeking  salvation,  on  trial,  with- 
out showing  them  the  way  to  G-od?  Never j 
no,  never.  Every  honest  inquirer  that  ever 
came  to  them  was  forthwith  shown  the 
way.  They  kept  no  anxious  mourners 
seeking,  agonizing  and  going  into  despair, 
but  showed  all  the  way  to  salvation  on  the 
first  interview.  Three  thousand  seekers 
came  to  Peter,  on  Pentecost,  crying,  "  Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?"  Had 
my  friend's  system  been  the  one  in  use 
on  that  occasion,  not  one-fifth  of  the  three 
thousand  would  have  been  converted.  But 
the  Apostle  answered  them  and  they  all 

12 


178  DEBATE  ON  JUSTIFICATION. 

heard  the  answer,  did  as  commanded,  and 
were  justified  in  the  very  sense  claimed  by 
Mr.  M.  to  be  the  sense  of  our  proposition. 
''  Eepent  and  be  baptized,"  said  the  man  of 
God — the  same  day  the  Holy  Spirit  came 
from  heaven  to  guide  him  into  all  truth — 
*'  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  you 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
*'  As  many  as  gladly  received  his  word, 
were  baptized,  and  the  same  day  there 
were  added  unto  them  about  three  thou- 
sand souls."  Here  was  a  preacher  who 
could  show  seekers  the  way  to  God. 
Here  was  a  system  that  had  light  in  it. 
Let  my  worthy  friend  lay  aside  his  system 
of  doubts  and  uncertainties,  and  follow,  im- 
plicitly, the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  he  will 
show  all  the  way  into  the  kingdom  who 
come  to  him. 


[end  op  first  proposition.] 


DEBATE 

ON 

THE  ACTION  OF  BAPTISM. 


MR.  FRANKLIIV'S  OPEIVING  ADDRESS. 

Second   Proposition. — Immersion  is  the  only  Baptism 
taught  in  the  Scriptm^es  and  practiced  by  the  Apostles. 
Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  am  truly  thankful  that  a  kind  and  gra- 
cious Providence  has  been  over  us  through 
the  past  night,  and  that  we  are  comfortably 
situated  and  permitted  to  prosecute  our 
investigations.  I  hope  we  shall  still  keep 
in  mind,  that  we  all  should  have  but  a  sin- 
gle aim,  viz.,  to  know  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  touching 
the  points  in  debate.  We  are  not  debating 
for  victory  over  men  or  jx^^'ti^s,  but  for  the 
victory  of  truth  over  error.  My  desire  is, 
that  truth  may  prevail  over  all,  no  matter 
where  it  places  me. 

I  did  not  succeed  in  getting  our  proposi- 
tion stated  as  I  desired.  I  proposed,  in 
our  correspondence,  to  affirm  my  prac- 
tice— immersion — and  defend  it,  and  let 
my  opponent  deny.  But  I  could  not  induce 
him  to  agree  to  this,  because,  as  I  siippose, 
he  believes  in  and,  in  some  instances,  prac- 
tices immersion.    I  then  proposed  for  him 

13 


180  DEBATE   ON  THE 

to  affirm  his  practice — sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing— and  defend  it,  and  I  would  deny. 
This,  too,  be  declined.  I  could  induce  him 
to  agree  to  no  proposition  except  something 
in  the  form  of  the  present,  requiring  me  to 
affirm,  not  only  that  immersion  is  baptism, 
but,  negatively,  that  nothing  else  is  haptism, 
I  am  not,  therefore,  expecting  any  debate 
on  immersion,  or  my  practice,  but  expect- 
ing my  opponent  to  admit  that  I  am  right — 
that  immersion  is  baptism.  The  question 
remaining,  or  of  any  interest  to  us,  is 
whether  his  practice — sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing— is  baptism.  Here  is  where  the  battle 
ground  is  to  be  after  all,  though  my  wor- 
thy friend  did  not  have  the  fortitude  to 
come  up  to  the  work  and  affirm  his  prac- 
tice. I  am  truly  gratified,  then,  that  all  his 
church  and  his  Discipline  agree  with  me, 
that  immersion  is  baptism — that  it  is  right, 
and  that  many  of  his  members  agree,  fur- 
ther, that  nothing  but  immersion  is  bap- 
tism, and  can  not  be  induced  to  receive 
any  thing  else. 

Our  question  is  a  very  simple  one  and 
easily  comprehended.  I  affirm  the  simj)le 
proposition,  that  immersion  is  the  only 
baptism  taught  in  the  Christian  Scriptures 
and  practiced  by  the  Apostles.  We  had 
some  little  difference  about  that  little  word 
"only"  on  yesterday.  We  have  the  same 
word  in  our  proposition  to-day,  and  I  shall 
have  no  trouble  in  getting  my  opj)onent  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  that  word  to- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  181 

day.  He  did  not  understand  it  to  mean 
alone  on  yesterday,  but  to-day  he  will  un- 
derstand it  to  mean  alone.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  twist  out  of  its  meaning  as  he 
did,  but  shall  admit  that  it  means  aloiic^  in 
its  most  exclusive  sense.  The  simple  mat- 
ter for  us  to  determine,  is  precisely  what  the 
Apostles  did  lohen  they  baptized.  Did  they 
sprinkle  water  upon  persons  ?  pour  water 
upon  them  ?  or  immerse  them  in  water  ? 
To  say  that  they  sprinkled  water  upon 
some,  poured  water  upon  others,  and  im- 
mersed others  in  water,  I  consider  out  of 
the  question.  When  Jesus  commanded  the 
Apostles  to  baptize,  he  commanded  them 
to  do  something.  What  they  did,  in  obey- 
ing the  command,  was  an  action — one  action^ 
and  no  more.  Our  inquiries,  at  this  time, 
are  to  determine  precisely  what  that  one 
action  was.  We  find  one  command,  for  one 
thing  to  be  done.  That  one  thing,  in  the 
common  version  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
called  baptize.  This  word  baptize  expresses 
the  one  thing  to  be  done — the  only  thing 
to  be  done  in  administering  the  ordinance, 
or  rite,  commanded  to  be  done.  When  the 
Apostles  obeyed  this  one  command,  they 
did  one  thing  and  no  more.  They  per- 
formed one  act,  in  obeying  the  one  com- 
mand to  baptize,  and  no  living  man  can 
make  it  appear  that  they  ditl  any  more. 
Can  one  command  be  obeyed,  in  one  act  of 
obedience,  in  j^erforming  three  acts,  so  differ- 
ent as  the  acts  of  sprinkling  and  j)ouring 


182  DEBATE   ON   THE 

and  immersing?  Is  it  not  self-evident, 
that  if  the  command  to  do  one  thing, 
means  to  sprinkle,  it  does  not  mean  to 
pour  ?  or  if  it  means  to  pour,  it  does  not 
mean  to  sprinkle  or  immerse  ?  or  if  it  means 
to  immerse,  it  does  not  mean  to  sprinkle  or 
pour?  To  sprinkle,  i^our  and  immerse,  are 
three  distinct  acts,  and  it  is  a  natural  impos- 
sibility for  one  command,  expressing  what 
is  to  be  done,  in  one  word,  to  mean  three 
acts  so  different  and  distinct  from  each 
other.  If  by  the  word  haj^tizo,  the  Lord 
meant  sprinkle,  he  did  not  mean  pour ;  for 
the  word  sprinkle  does  not  mean  pour.  If 
he  meant  pour,  he  did  not  mean  immerse  ; 
for  pour  does  not  mean  immerse.  If  he 
meant  immerse,  he  did  not  mean  sprinkle; 
for  immerse  does  not  mean  sprinkle.  It  is  as 
rational  to  speak  of  sprinkling  and  ^^ouring 
by  immersing,  as  to  speak  of  baptizing  by 
sprinkling,  pouring  and  immersing. 

I.  I  shall,  therefore,  proceed  to  my  first 
argument,  which  is,  that  the  Lord  and  the 
Apostles,  when  they  expressed  that  w^hich 
was  to  be  done  literally,  used  but  one  word. 
That  word  was  haptizo.  When  they  spoke 
of  the  rite  literally,  they  invariably  used 
that  one  word.  It  is  certain  that  a  word 
can  never  have  but  one  meaning  when 
applied  to  one  thing.  The  one  thing  it 
is  applied  to,  so  far  as  our  controversy  is 
concerned,  is  the  rite,  or  the  ordinance. 
Now,  it  is  no  matter  how  many  meanings 
this   word  could    have,    when   applied   to 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  183 

otlier  things  ;  it  is  certain  that  it  can  have 
but  one  meaning,  when  applied  to  one 
thing.  ]N"o  matter  how  many  meanings  a 
word  may  have,  when  applied  to  one  thing, 
no  matter  how  often,  it  can  have  but  one 
meaning.  JSothing  can  be  clearer  than  that 
the  Lord  has  used  this  one  word  invariably 
to  express  that  which  he  required  to  be 
done,  in  performing  the  rite.  J^o  man  of 
intelligence  can  fail  to  see  that  every  time 
that  word  is  used  to  express  that  one  thing 
to  be  done,  or  that  one  command,  it  has  the 
same  meaning.  No  word  can  be  used  in- 
telligibly, in  two  diiferent  senses,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  same  thing.  Baptism  is  com- 
manded. A  command  is  something  to  be 
done.  What  is  it  that  expresses  what  is  to 
be  done  ?  No  word,  where  that  which  is 
to  be  done,  is  literally  expressed,  but  bap- 
tizo.  If  that  word  does  not  express  what  is 
to  be  done,  it  is  not  expressed  at  all,  and 
no  man  knows  whether  he  is  baptized  or 
not.  It  is  manifest,  that  if  that  which  is 
to  be  done  is  not  revealed,  no  man  knows 
whether  it  is  done  or  not.  Is  it  not  a  sin- 
gular idea,  that  a  positive  command  should 
be  given,  and  that  which  is  to  be  done  not 
revealed  ?  How  are  we  to  know  what  is 
to  be  done,  or  when  it  is  done,  on  this 
hypothesis.  Such,  precisely,  is  the  predic- 
ament of  my  worthy  opponent,  on  this 
occasion.  He  believes  that  God  has  given 
a  positive  command,  but  has  not  revealed 
what  is  to  be  done,  and  consequently  that 


184  DEBATE   ON  THE 

no  man  knows  whether  it  is  done  or  not, 
in  any  given  case.  He,  therefore,  intends 
to  infer  that  it  may  be  done  in  different 
ways. 

Permit  me  to  spend  a  few  moments  in 
defining  the  position  of  my  opponent.  He 
says,  in  our  correspondence,  "I  hold  that 
the  mode  is  not  essential,  and  that  it  is  not 
definitely  taught  in  the  Scriptures."  Again, 
speaking  of  bajDtism,  he  says  :  "  It  is  not 
sprinkling,  nor  pouring,  nor  immersion,  as 
such,  but  baptism."  Here  we  have  strange 
light !  The  mode  is  not  definitely  revealed, 
and  not  essential !  How  does  he  then 
know  what  it  is  not,  or  what  it  is,  if  the 
mode  is  not  revealed  ?  Is  not  this  a  clear 
concession,  that  he  does  not  know  any 
thing  about  it  ?  The  worthy  gentleman, 
however,  is  not  standing  alone  in  this  sin- 
gular predicament,  in  coming  up  to  debate 
on  that  which  is  not  revealed,  and  that 
which  he  thus  admits  he  does  not  know  any 
thing  about.  Mr.  Wesley  says,  Doctrinal 
Tracts,  p.  243  :  "  I  say,  hi/  washing,  dipping^ 
or  sprinkling,  because  it  is  not  determined 
in  Scripture  in  which  of  these  ways  it  shall 
be  done  ;  neither  by  any  exj)ress  precept, 
nor  by  any  such  example  as  clearly  proves 
it ;  nor  by  the  force  or  meaning  of  the 
word  hcrptize.'"  Again,  speaking  of  being 
"buried  by  baptism,"  Mr.  Wesley  says: 
"  IS'othing  can  be  inferred  from  such  a  figu- 
rative expression."  It  is  true,  he  does  say, 
in  another  place,  uj)on  the   identical  same 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  185 

expression,  that  "  this  evidently  alludes  to 
the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  im- 
mersion." The  position  of  my  opponent, 
backed  up  by  Mr.  Wesley,  is  that  the  mode, 
as  he  calls  it,  is  not  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  ordinance ;  that  it  is  not  revealed, 
and,  therefore,  may  be  administered  in  any 
way  !  To  this  lax  theology,  I  object.  I 
do  not  believe  the  Lord  ever  gave  a  posi- 
tive divine  command  without  revealing 
what  was  commanded. 

My  position  is  entirely  different  from  all 
this.  The  word  haptize  does  not  mean  or- 
dinance, purify,  or  cleanse.  It  has  no 
water  in  it,  nor  fire,  nor  spirit.  When 
found  in  the  command  of  Jesus,  it  expres- 
ses what  was  to  be  done,  and  nothing  else. 
The  Lord  simply  commanded  the  subjects 
to  be  immersed.  We  learn  nothing  from 
haptizo  about  what  they  were  to  be  immersed 
in,  or /or,  but  simpl}^  that  they  were  to  be  im- 
mersed. Everything  else,  except  the  action, 
must  be  learned  from  other  words.  The 
word  haptizo  expresses  the  action,  the  thing 
to  be  done,  the  exact  thing  commanded, 
and  nothing  else.  Now,  if  it  be  insisted 
that  this  word  has  different  meanings, 
which  I  do  not  admit,  even  then  it  avails 
nothing,  in  this  case  ;  because  no  word  can 
have  different  meanings,  when  applied  to 
the  same  thing.  The  Divine  ai^pointment, 
rite,  or  ceremony,  is  the  same  thing  wher- 
ever haptizo  is  applied  to  it.  It  can  not, 
therefore,  have  two  meanings,  or  three  or 


186  DEBATE    ON   THE 

more,  when  applied  to  the  same  thing — it 
must  always  express  the  same  action.  That 
action  was  immersion,  and  nothing  else. 
IS'o  man  of  any  note  contends  that  it  was 
sj)r inkling  or  pouring. 

II.  My  second  argument  is,  that  in  de- 
parting from  the  appointment  of  God,  it  is 
more  probable  that  they  dejDarted  from  the 
more  laborious,  inconvenient  and  unpleas- 
ant to  the  more  easy,  convenient  and  pleas- 
ant, than  that  they  departed  from  the  more 
easy,  convenient  and  pleasant,  to  the  more 
laborious,  inconvenient  and  unpleasant.  I 
am  not  aware  that  the  clergy  ever  have,  in 
that  which  they  had  to  perform  with  their 
own  hands,  departed  from  the  more  easy, 
convenient  and  pleasant,  to  the  more  labo- 
rious, inconvenient  and  unpleasant.  If  im- 
mersion was  the  ancient  practice,  then 
j)ouring,  sprinkling,  and  every  thing  since 
j)racticed  for  baptism,  is  a  corruption  of, 
and  a  departure  from,  the  primitive  prac- 
tice. On  the  other  hand,  if  sprinkling  was 
practiced  anciently,  immersing,  pouring, 
and  every  thing  else  practiced  for  baptism, 
is  a  corruption  of,  and  a  departure  from, 
the  original  appointment  of  God.  If,  there- 
fore, the  aj)Ostles  and  first  evangelists  prac- 
ticed that  easy,  convenient  and  pleasant 
usage,  admired  by  Mr.  Merrill,  is  it  not 
.strange,  that  when  the  apostasy  took  hold 
upon  their  hearts,  they  should  have  adopt- 
ed the  laborious,  inconvenient  and  unpleas- 
ant practice  of  immersing  ?    But  how  per- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  187 

fectly  natural,  when  tlie  lust  of  the  flesh, 
the  pride  of  life,  and  the  love  of  ease  began 
to  take  possession  of  their  hearts,  that  they 
should  have  departed  from  immersion  and 
have  adopted  the  easy  and  comfortable 
practice  of  sprinkling.  ISTothiDg  could  be 
more  natural  than  this ;  nor  is  there  an  ar- 
gument in  existence,  now  used  against  im- 
mersion, that  has  half  the  force,  with  the 
proud  and  pleasure-loving  of  this  world,  or 
one  that  makes  half  as  many  try  to  satisfy 
their  consciences  with  sprinkling,  as  the 
appeal  with  reference  to  the  inconvenience, 
unpleasantness  and  disagreeableness  of  im- 
mersion has.  Immersion  has  ever  had  the 
feelings  of  the  flesh,  the  jDride  of  life  and 
love  of  ease,  on  the  part  of  the  ministry, 
against  it.  How  perfectly  rational,  too, 
when  the  ministrj^  became  proud,  lovers 
of  ease,  convenience  and  pleasantness,  they 
should  gradually  have  departed  from  im- 
mersion and  fallen  in  love  with  the  easy 
practice  of  sprinkling. 

There  is  another  feature  here  that  is 
equally  deplorable.  It  is  an  indisputable 
historical  fact,  that  as  the  light  of  the  apos- 
tolic age  receded,  sprinkling  gradually  came 
into  practice  and  gained  the  most  extended 
prevalence  at  the  zenith  of  the  dark  ages ; 
and  since  the  light  of  the  Eeformation  has 
spread  forth,  immersion  has  gained  in  prev- 
alence about  in  proportion  as  light  has 
spread,  till  about  one-fifth  of  the  entire 
population  of  our  glorious  Union  are  im- 


188  DEBATE   ON   THE 

mersionists.  Sprinkling  for  baptism  is  not 
known  to  any  writing  of  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, and  only  known  at  all  for  thirteen 
centuries  in  cases  of  extreme  weakness  or 
sickness,  and  in  these  cases  they  were  not 
permitted  to  hold  any  office  in  the  church. 
My  argument  from  these  premises  amounts 
to  this  :  That  it  is  unreasonable  and  im- 
probable that  the  ministry  should  have 
changed  from  the  easy,  convenient  and 
pleasant  practice  of  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
to  the  more  laborious,  inconvenient  and  un- 
pleasant practice  of  immersing,  when  the 
spirit  of  pride  and  apostasy  had  taken  hold 
of  them  and  they  were  departing  from  the 
Lord  ;  and  it  is  equally  unreasonable  and 
improbable  that  they  should  have  adhered 
more  closely  to  the  original  appointment 
when  departing  into  the  darkness,  ignor- 
ance and  superstition  of  the  dark  ages,  and 
then  commenced  departing  from  this  orig- 
inal appointment  as  soon  as  the  light  of  the 
Eeformation  burst  forth  !  The  true  state 
of  the  case  is,  that  as  the  apostolic  light 
faded  from  the  church,  sprinkling  gradual- 
ly worked  into  it,  till  darkness  reached  its 
most  expanded  prevalence.  Precisely  at 
that  period  sprinkling  prevailed  more 
largely  than  at  any  other  period  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  church.  As  soon  as  the  light 
of  the  Eeformation  had  shone  forth,  and 
the  apostolic  teachings  and  practices  began 
to  be  resuscitated,  sj^rinkling  began  to  re- 
cede and  immersion  to  extend.    This  shows 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  189 

that  as  light,  information  and  reformation 
prevail,  immersion — though  against  the 
feelings  of  the  flesh,  the  pride  of  life  and 
worldly  influence — prevails;  which  certain- 
ly could  not  and  would  not  be  the  case,  if 
it  had  not  Divine  authority  in  its  favor. 
When  darkness  leads  to  the  easy,  the  pleas- 
ant and  convenient,  and  light  leads  to  the 
more  laborious,  inconvenient  and  unpleas- 
ant, there  must  be  a  necessity  for  it,  and 
that  necessity,  in  this  case,  is  that  the  law  of 
God  requires  it.  When  the  law  of  God  is  ex- 
amined and  brought  to  bear  upon  the  souls 
of  the  people,  they  are  immersed ;  but  when 
darkness  and  inattention  prevail,  sprink- 
ling, they  decide,  ivill  do  ! 

III.  My  third  argument  is,  that  the  Dis- 
cipline, Mr.  Wesley,  and  my  worthy  friend, 
agree  with  me,  that  immersion  is  baptism.  In 
baptizing,  even  an  infant,  the  Discipline  re- 
quires the  preacher  to  say,  "Name  this 
child."  The  Discipline  proceeds:  "And 
then,  naming  it  after  them,  he  shall  sprin- 
kle or  pour  water  upon  it,  or,  if  desired, 
immerse  it  in  water."  I  must  call  the 
attention  of  the  audience  to  this  pecu- 
liar language.  You  perceive,  it  says  noth- 
ing about  sprinhling  or  pouring  the  child,  for 
this  would  sound  ridiculous,  even  in  their 
own  estimation  ;  but  the  Discipline  speaks 
in  the  more  rational  and  intelligible  man- 
ner, of  sprinkling  and  pouring  water  upon 
the  child,  or  immersing  in  ivater.  This  la 
sensible  language.     They  do  not   speak  of 


190  DEBATE   ON  THE 

sprinMing  the  child,  but  sprinJcUng  water ;  but 
they  do  speak  of  immersing  the  child,  and  not 
of  immersing  ivafer.  This  can  be  done.  It 
is  rational.  But  if  the  words  sprinkle  and 
pour  here  mean  baptize,  then  it  is  not  the 
child  that  is  baptized,  but  the  tvater  is  bap- 
tized upon  the  child!  This  is  clear  to  any 
intelligent  mind  at  a  glance.  But  I  have 
simply  gone  aside  to  this  to  show  that  the 
Discipline  endorses  immersion.  In  connec- 
tion with  this,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  may 
hear  us,  who  have  not  read  the  Discipline, 
we  give  the  direction  given  the  minister  in 
reference  to  those  of  riper  years  :  "  Then 
shall  the  minister  take  each  person  to  be 
baptized  by  the  right  hand  ;  and,  placing 
him  convenient  to  the  font,  according  to  his 
discretion,  shall  ask  the  name ;  and  then 
shall  sprinkle  or  pour  water  upon  him  [or, 
if  he  desire  it,  shall  immerse  him  in  wa- 
ter]." Here,  then,  in  my  oj^ponent's  own 
Discipline,  we  find  a  full  endorsement  of 
immersion. 

Mr.  Wesley  says,  ''  Baptism  is  performed, 
by  washing,  dipping,  or  sprinkling  the  per- 
son, in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  Doct.  Tracts, 
p.  243.  In  his  note,  on  the  words,  "  buried 
by  baptism,"  Eom.  vi.  4,  he  says  :  "  This 
evidently  alludes  to  the  ancient  manner  of 
baptizing  by  immersion."  Here,  then,  we 
have  the  endorsement  of  the  Discipline, 
Doct.  Tracts,  endorsed  by  the  Methodist 
Conference,  and  Wesley's  Sotes,  for  immer- 


ACTION  OP  BAPTISM.  191 

sion.  Methodist  preachers,  however  much 
they  may  dislike  immersion,  when  they  find 
persons  (as  they  frequently  do)  who  can  not 
be  persuaded  to  have  water  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon  them,  will  go  down  into  the 
water  with  them,  and  lifting  their  hand  to 
heaven,  say,  "I  baptize  you  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  immerse  the  person  in  wa- 
ter. They  thus  lift  their  hand  to  heaven, 
before  Grod  and  the  people,  and  pronounce 
immersion  baptism,  in  saying,  "I  baptize," 
when  they  immerse,  and  do  this  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  This  is  a  solemn  and 
awful  endorsement  of  immersion,  and  the 
men  who  thus  endorse  it,  should  be  very 
careful  not  to  say  any  thing  against  it.  They 
show  thus,  that  they  can  practice  immer- 
sion without  any  violation  of  conscience. 
Our  debate,  therefore,  is  not  about  immer- 
sion. My  opponent  believes  in  immersion, 
lifts  his  hand  to  heaven  and  in  the  solemn 
and  awful  name  of  the  whole  Divinity,  calls 
it  baptism.  This  he  could  not  do  if  he  did 
not  believe  in  it,  without  ruining  his  own 
soul.  The  question,  then,  and  the  only  ques- 
tion to  settle,  on  this  occasion,  is  whether 
his  practice  will  stand  the  test.  This  places 
him  where  he  really  is,  in  the  afiirmative, 
defending  sprinkliug,  pouring,  moistening, 
staining,  cleansing,  purifying,  or  any  thing 
else  he  can  think  of.  I  have  nothing  at 
stake.  He  has  everything  at  stake.  It  is 
a  most  fearful  thing  for  a  preacher  to  say, 

14 


192  DEBATE   ON   THE 

'■^Ihajptke  you  in  the  naiiie  of  the  Pather, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
when  he  does  not  baptize  at  all.  This  I 
solemnly  believe  every  man  does  who  prac- 
tices any  tiling  but  immersion. 

IV^.  My  fourth  argument  is  founded  upon 
the  fact,  that  those  who  were  proper  sub- 
jects, and  have  been  immersed,  are  satisfied. 
They  may  hear  sprinklers  preach,  no  mat- 
ter how  much,  and  they  rarely  ever  become 
dissatisfied  and  desire  to  have  water  sprink- 
led or  poured  upon  them.  I  do  not  say, 
that  no  case  can  be  found,  where  immersed 
persons  became  dissatisfied  and  desire  to 
have  water  sj)rinkled  or  poured  upon  them. 
If  there  are  any  such  cases,  they  are  ex- 
ceedingly few.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
what  multitudes  of  those  who  have  receiv- 
ed sprinkling  or  pouring  become  dissatis- 
fied and,  after  hearing  all  their  preachers 
can  say  to  satisfy  them,  though  they  have 
confidence  in  them  and  love  them,  can  not 
rest,  nor  be  persuaded  that  they  have  been 
baptized,  and  are  never  satisfied  till  they 
are  immersed.  What  is  the  reason  of  this 
vast  difference  ?  Why  do  those  sprinkled, 
in  such  numerous  instances,  become  dissat- 
isfied ?  and  why  do  those  immersed  so  rare- 
ly, if  ever,  become  dissatisfied  ?  Many  as 
sincere  and  honest  as  can  be  found  on  earth, 
remain  dissatisfied  with  sprinkling  all  their 
lives,  and  dissatisfied  when  they  come  to 
death;  and  no  reasoning,  persuasions  or  ar- 
guments of  their  own  preachers,  whom  they 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  193 

love  and  have  confidence  in,  can  satisfy 
them.  Wb}^  cannot  the  mind  be  put  to  rest 
on  one  side  of  tlie  question,  while  it  is  at 
rest  so  generally  on  tbe  other?  Immersion 
answers  the  conscience,  but  sprinkling  or 
pouring  does  not.  My  worthy  friend  and 
many  other  preachers  know  that  they  can 
not  satisfy  the  members  of  their  own  church- 
es. In  spite  of  all  the  comfort  they  can 
give  them,  the  supports  they  can  furnish, 
or  evidences  they  can  produce,  their  mem- 
bers, in  numerous  instances,  have  a  con- 
sciousness all  the  time  that  they  have  not 
done  their  duty  and  are  unhappy  about  it. 
Why  is  this  ?  The  reason  is  simply  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring  have  no  foundation 
in  the  Bible. 

The  only  matter  of  surprise,  in  my  mind, 
is,  when  they  can  and  do  immerse  conscious- 
ly, why  they  should  continue  a  practice  in- 
volving so  many  sincere,  candid  and  hon- 
est souls,  in  their  endeavors  to  serve  God, 
in  such  an  unhappy  condition,  such  a  state 
of  doubt  and  uncertainty  for  life,  in  that 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  of  such  great  mo- 
ment that  they  can  not  be  hapj^y  till  they 
know  they  have  done  what  the  Lord  com- 
manded, when  they  could  so  easily  practice 
that  which  would  leave  them  in  no  doubt ! 
A  large  number  of  those  sprinkled,  both  of 
those  sprinkled  before  they  know  any 
thing,  and  those  who  receive  it  voluntarily, 
become  unhappy  about  it,  discontented  and 
can  not  rest  till  they  are  immersed.     Why 


194  DEBATE   ON   THE 

involve  them  in  this  doubtful  practice,  when 
they  could  practice  that  which  is  followed 
by  no  such  consequences  ?  There  can  be 
no  reason  tor  it.  That  which  God  has  aj)- 
pointed  leaves  j)erson3  in  no  such  doubts. 
It  is,  at  least,  a  strong  evidence  that  immer- 
sion is  of  Grod,  that  it  puts  the  heart  to  rest 
so  far  as  the  command  to  be  baptized  is  con- 
cerned. This  arises  from  the  strong  assu- 
rances found  in  the  Bible,  that  immersion  is 
baptism  and  that  sprinkling  is  not. 

y.  My  fifth  argument  is,  that  the  Greek 
Church  never  practiced  any  thing  but  im- 
mersion. In  all  the  changes  it  has  passed 
through  and  amidst  all  the  innovations  uj^on 
the  usages  of  the  Greek  Church,  she  has 
preserved  immersion  all  the  time.  I  am 
fully  aware  that  the  Greek  language  as  spo- 
ken by  the  Greek  Church  now,  is  not  the 
same  as  the  original  Greek  language.  But 
the  original  Greek  writings  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Greek  Church,  with  her  lite- 
rature, at  an  early  day,  and  she  received 
and  has  kept  the  apostolic  usage,  so  far  as 
this  action  is  concerned,  all  the  time.  The 
circumstance  that  Greeks  understood  their 
own  literature,  the  meaning  of  their  own 
tongue,  which  they  had  in  writing  as  well 
as  in  s^^eech  among  them,  received  the  ordi- 
nance in  it  and  practiced  immersion  all  the 
time,  is  a  strong  evidence  that  immersion 
and  nothing  else  is  baj^tism. 

YI.  As  I  am  hastening  to  lay  before  my 
friend  as  full  an  exhibit  of  my  argument  as 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  195 

possible  in  my  introductory  speech,  I  has- 
ten to  my  sixth  argument,  founded  upon 
the  fact  that  neither  sprinkling,  pouring  or 
any  thing  but  immersion,  for  baptism,  is 
mentioned  in  any  book  written  in  the  first 
two  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era. 
So  far  as  my  information  goes,  not  a  wri- 
ting of  the  first  two  centuries  has  been  pro- 
duced, in  all  the  controversies  on  this  sub- 
ject, containing  a  solitary  mention  of  any 
thing  but  immersion  for  baptism.  Such  a 
mention  would  have  been  produced  long 
since,  if  it  could  have  been  done.  I  am 
well  satisfied  that  no  such  mention  is  to  be 
found.  Can  it,  then,  be  possible  that  sprink- 
ling or  pouring,  for  baptism,  was  practiced 
during  a  space  of  two  hundred  years  and 
never  mentioned  in  a  single  writing  pro- 
duced in  that  whole  period,  nor  alluded  to 
in  any  shape  or  form  ?  Sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing, for  baptism,  is  not  hinted  at  in  all  the 
Bible.  It  is  true,  we  find  both  the  words 
sprinkle  andpo?n',  but  never  used  to  express 
what  the  Apostles  did  when  they  baptized. 
Nor  is  there  any  mention  of  any  person 
during  this  whole  period  ever  being  sprink- 
led or  poured  upon  for  baptism.  jN'o  won- 
der that  Mr.  M.  can  not  satisfy  his  own 
members  with  his  practice,  when  he  can  not 
find  a  word  about  it  in  the  Bible,  nor  any 
thing  written  in  the  first  two  centuries  of 
the  history  of  the  Church.  How  his  prac- 
tice could  have  been  revealed  of  God,  com- 
manded by  the  Savior  and  the  Aj)Ostlcs,  and 


196  DEBATE   ON   THE 

practiced  for  two  hundred  years,  and  yet 
not  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  nor  any  other 
book  of  that  whole  period,  is  truly  unac- 
countable! There  is  but  one  solution  of 
the  matter,  and  that  is,  that  there  was  no 
such  practice  as  sprinkling  or  pouring  for 
baptism,  during  this  whole  period,  in  exist- 
ence. Such  a  thing  was  not  in  existence. 
The  writers  in  those  times  did  not  write 
about  things  not  in  existence,  about  which 
they  never  heard,  and  about  which  they 
knew  nothing.  This  argument  must  be  in- 
validated or  my  friend  must  fail.  If  my 
premise  here  is  correct,  and  it  certainly  is, 
no  argument  from  any  other  source  can 
sustain  sprinkling  or  pouring.  Especially 
is  this  true,  so  far  as  our  proposition  is  con- 
cerned, for  we  are  to  find  what  is  taught  in 
the  Scriptui'cs  and  lo as  practiced  hy  the  Apostles, 
If  sprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptism,  is  not 
in  the  Scriptures  and  was  not  practiced  by 
the  Apostles,  then  it  has  no  authority  and 
must  fall  to  the  ground. 

yil.  My  seventh  argument  is,  that  im- 
mersion was  invariably  practiced  by  all 
jH'o/essed  Christians  for  the  first  thirteen 
hundred  years,  except  after  the  beginning 
of  the  fourth  century,  in  extreme  cases  of 
weakness,  or  sickness,  or  such  as  they  call- 
ed clinics,  and  these  were  never  allowed  to 
hold  any  office  in  the  church.  If  there  is 
any  historical  fact  well  sustained,  this  is; 
and  this  fact  being  sustained,  leaves  not  one 
thing  under  the  shining  sun  for  sprinkling 


ACTION   or   BAPTISM.  197 

or  pouring  for  baptism  to  rest  upon.  I  ask 
the  worthy  gentleman,  who  is  to  respond  to 
me,  to  come  forward  and  meet  this.  Is  not 
what  I  have  stated  a  well  established  fact, 
generally  conceded  on  all  hands?  and  if  it 
is,  upon  what  does  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
for  baptism,  stand?  Upon  nothing  under 
the  sun  ;  and  here  is  found  the  reason  that 
there  is  nothing  satisfactory  in  it. 

YIII.  My  eighth  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  fact  that  nothing  but  immerse^  or 
some  word  of  the  same  import,  can  be  sub- 
stituted for  hapfizo,  and  make  sense.  It  is 
a  rule  in  language,  or  in  interpretation, 
that  the  proper  definition  of  a  word,  in- 
serted for  that  word,  or  in  the  place  of  it, 
will  make  sense  and  give  the  true  meaning 
to  the  reader.  If  haptizo  means  immerSe, 
it  will  make  sense  to  insert  immerse  in 
the  place  of  haptizo  in  every  place  where  it 
occurs  and  give  the  true  meaning,  or  the 
meaning  intended  in  the  passage.  A  few 
examples  of  this  sort  will  satisfy  any  per- 
son of  common  intelligence  that  it  does  not 
mean  sprinkle,  and  that  the  Apostles  did 
not  sprinkle  for  baptism.  Let  us  try 
sprinkle  in  the  place  of  haptizo  in  a  few  ex- 
amples: "Then  went  to  him  Jerusalem 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan  and  were  sprinkled  of  him  in 
Jordan;"  Mat.  iii.  5-6.  How  was  this 
done?  I  can  understand  how  water  can 
be  sprinkled  upon  persons,  as  the  Dis- 
cipline expresses  it,   but   how   the   people 


198  DEBATE   ON   THE 

could  have  been  siDrinkled  of  John  in 
Jordan,  I  can  not  comprehend.  How  he 
could  sprinlde  people  in  a  river,  I  pretend 
not  to  know!  This  would  have  been  a 
greater  task  than  to  have  immersed  them. 
It  is  easy  to  see  how  John  could  have 
immersed  them  in  Jordan.  Let  us  have  an- 
other case :  "  He  shall  sprinkle  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire;"  Mat.  iii. 
11.  Did  the  Lord  mean,  when  speaking 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Sj^irit  and  of 
fire,  a  mere  sprinkle  of  the  spirit  and  of 
fire?  Would  a  mere  sprinkle  represent  the 
grandest  and  most  wonderful  work  of  the 
Holy  Sj^irit  ever  known  to  man  ?  Did  he 
not  mean  an  overwhelming  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  of  fire  ?  I  have  never  known  a 
man  yet  to  try  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  fire  was  a  mere 
sprinkle. 

The  Lord  said  to  the  disciples,  "  Are  ye 
able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink 
of,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
that  I  am  to  be  baptized  with  ?"  Matt.  xx. 
22.  Does  this  mean,  "  Are  you  able  to  be 
sprinkled,  with  the  sprinlding  that  I  am  to  be 
sprinJded  with  ?"  This  solemn  passage  re- 
fers to  our  Lord's  great  sufferings.  Did  he 
represent  his  great  sufferings,  when  he  . 
made  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  and  bore 
our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  by 
calling  them  a  sprinlding  of  sufferings.  Ho 
certainly  did  not.  This  would  be  rather 
weak  imagery.     Ho  did  not  look  upon  his 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  199 

sufferings  as  a  mere  sprinlding^  when  he 
said,  "  O  my  Fatlier,  if  it  be  possible  let 
this  cup  pass  ;  nevertheless,  not  my  will  but 
thine  be  done."  When  he  called  these 
great  sufferings  a  baptism  he  did  not  mean 
a  sprinkling,  but  an  immersion — an  over- 
whelming. Here,  then,  the  most  superficial 
observer  can  see  that  haptizo  cannot  be 
translated  sprinkle.  Let  us  try  another  pas- 
sage :  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  sprinh- 
ling;''  Eph.  iv.  5.  Is  that  the  meaning  of 
this  familiar  passage?  Mr.  M.  himself 
will  not  say  so.  Indeed,  he  will  not  take 
tbe  position  that  haptizo  means  sprinJcle,  or 
that  it  should  be  translated  sj^rm^-Ze.  Yet 
there  is  nothing  clearer  than  that  if  it 
means  sf)rinkle,  it  will  make  sense  to  trans- 
late it  sprinkle.  If,  when  the  Lord  com- 
manded the  Apostles  to  baptize,  he  meant 
to  sprinkle ;  and  if  when  the  Aj^ostles 
obeyed  the  command,  they  did  sprinkle,  it 
will  make  sense  and  mean  just  what  he 
intended,  to  translate  baptizo,  which  all 
admit  to  be  a  Greek  word,  sprinkle,  in  every 
case  where  it  relates  to  this  command. 
The  Apostles  had  the  Holy  Spirit  to  guide 
them  into  all  truth,  and  they  not  only  un- 
derstood what  the  Lord  meant  when  he 
commanded  them  to  baptize,  but  ihei/  did 
what  he  com7)ianded  tliem  to  do.  If  they 
sprinkled,  in  doing  what  he  commanded 
them  to  do,  that  was  what  the  Lord  meant ; 
and  it  will  make  sense,  and  do  entire  jus- 
tice to  the  text,  to  translate  haptiso,  sprinkle.  • 


200  DEBATE   ON   THE 

Yet  you  perceive  that  it  makes  nonsense  to 
read,  "  He  shall  sprinkle  you  with  the 
Holy  Sjoirit  and  with  fire,"  as  well  as  takes 
away  all  the  force  from  the  expression, 
touching  that  most  splendid  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  and  lowers  it  down  to  comparatively 
nothing — a  mere  sprinkle  of  the  Spirit ; 
and  if  the  baptism  of  fire  be  a  threat  to 
the  wicked,  as  I  most  solemnly  believe  it 
is,  it  lowers  it  down  to  nothing — a  mere 
sprinkle.     This  is  simply  ridiculous. 

Again,  Acts  viii.  38-39,  we  read  of  Philip 
and  the  nobleman,  that  they  "  went  down 
both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  and  he  sprinlded  him.  And  when 
they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip, 
that  the  eunuch  saw  him  no  more."  No 
one  can  help  feeling  that  there  is  an  incon- 
gruity here,  and  that  the  word  sprinlde  is 
not  6ongenial  with  the  scope  of  the  narra- 
tive. To  say,  "  they  went  down  both  into 
the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch, 
and  he  immersed  him,  is  consistent.  It 
furnishes  a  satisfactory  reason  for  going 
down  into  the  water ;  but  the  narrative,  with 
the  word  sprinkled  inserted,  in  the  place  of 
"  baptized,"  leaves  the  reader  without  any 
reason  for  going  down  into  the  water.  It 
ascribes  to  them  an  action  without  an 
object ;  it  says  "  they  went  down  into  the 
water,"  but  assigns  no  reason  for  going 
down  into  the  water.  Once  more :  "  Our 
fathers  were  once  under  the  cloud,  and  all 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  201 

passed  through  the  sea  ;  and  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea;"  I.  Cor.  x.  1-2.  Does  this  mean  that 
they  were  all  sprinkled  unto  Moses  in  the 
clouds  and  in  the  sea  ?  If  it  does,  I  should 
like  to  know  precisely  what  was  done. 
There  is  nothing  here  about  sprinkling 
water ^  cloud  or  sea ;  but  sprinkling  people 
into  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea. 
How  people  could  be  sjorinkled  into  Mo- 
ses is  sufficiently  singular  ;  but  how  this 
could  be  done  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea,  is  still  more  wonderful !  How  they 
could  be  immersed  into  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea,  when  the  cloud 
covered  over  them,  and  the  sea  surrounded 
them,  is  a  sufficiently  simple  and  plain 
matter  ;  but  there  is  certainly  no  meaning 
in  saying,  "  they  were  sprinkled  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

As  I  am  now  upon  a  rule  of  considerable 
importance,  I  will  introduce  another  exam- 
ple :  "  Buried  with  him  in  sprinkling, 
wherein  also  you  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  Grod, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead  ;"  Col. 
ii.  12.  Any  person  can  see  that  it  will  not 
do  to  say,  "  Buried  with  him  in  sprinkling,''^ 
or  to  speak  of  being  risen  from  sprinkling. 
Again,  we  read,  "  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;"  Eom. 
vi.  4.  It  will  not  do  to  say,  "  We  are  buried 
with  him  hy  sprinkling.  No  man  living  can 
tell  how  they  could  have  been  buried  with 


202  DEBATE   ON   THE 

him  hy  sprinhling  or  in  sprinJcUng,  as  it  is  in 
the  other  passage.  This  shows,  beyond 
controversy,  that  baptism,  does  not  mean 
sj)rinkling.  If  baptize  meant  s^^rinkle,  it 
would  make  sense  to  translate  it  sprinkle 
in  every  place  where  it  is  found.  Here,  I 
am  walking  on  solid  ground,  and  I  solicit 
the  most  rigid  and  searching  examination. 
IX.  My  ninth  argument  is,  that  the  lexi- 
cons, with  great  unanimity,  give  plunge, 
dijD,  overwhelm  or  immerse  as  the  first  de- 
finition, or  the  primary  naeaning,  of  the 
word  haptizo.  This  can  not  be  questioned 
by  any  one  who  stands  upon  truth.  If, 
then,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  grant 
that  haptizo  has  all  the  difterent  meanings 
claimed  by  sjDrinklers,  there  is  no  reason 
in  the  suj)position  that  the  Lord  used  it  in- 
variably when  he  aimed  to  express  what 
was  to  be  done  literally,  in  performing  the 
rite,  and  yet  used  it  in  a  secondary  sense, 
or  with  a  secondary  meaning,  in  every  in- 
stance in  the  JSTew  Testament.  The  Savior 
and  the  Apostles  have  used  the  word  in  dis- 
pute a  great  number  of  times,  and  it  will 
not  do  to  say  that  he  used  it  in  a  secondary 
sense  every  time  ;  nor  will  it  do  to  say  that 
he  used  it  in  one  sense  at  one  time  and  in 
another  sense  at  a  different  time,  when 
speaking  of  the  same  rite.  Can  any  man, 
in  his  right  mind,  suj^pose  that  while  the 
ISTew  Testament  strictly  adheres  to  the 
identical  same  word,  in  exj^ressing  what 
the  Lord  commanded  to  be  done,  and  yet 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  203 

used  that  word  in  two  dijfferent  senses? 
If  that  word  is  thus  used  in  two  senses — 
one  meaning  immerse  and  the  other  sprin- 
kle— then  he  commanded  two  things  to  be 
done,  expressed  by  the  same  word,  and  no 
man  can  tell  when  he  meant  the  one,  or  when 
he  meant  the  other.  This  would  render  the 
command  wholly  unintelligible.  A  posi- 
tive Divine  law  can  not  be  given  in  any 
such  loose  way  as  that.  The  Lord  has  em- 
ployed but  one  word,  and  certainly  that 
one  word,  when  applied  to  the  one  rite, 
could  have  but  one  meaning.  As  he  al- 
ways used  the  one  word,  he  must  have  used 
it  in  its  primary,  and  not  in  its  secondary, 
meaning.  He  most  certainly  did  not  use 
the  same  word  invariably,  in  giving  a  pos- 
itive command,  in  some  cases  in  one  sense, 
and  in  other  case-i  in  another  sense;  or  in 
some  cases,  in  the  primary  meaning,  and 
in  other  cases,  in  the  secondary  meaning. 
This  would  make  utter  confusion.  For  the 
purpose  of  making  a  point  here  that  my 
worthy  opponent  can  not  fail  to  see,  I  pre- 
sent the  following  : 

1.  The  Lord  invariably  used  the  word 
haptizo  when  he  expressed  the  thing  to  be 
done  literally. 

2.  He  must  have  used  the  word  in  its 
first  sense,  or  primary  meaning ;  for  it  is 
out  of  all  reason  to  suppose  that  he  used 
the  same  word  invariably,  in  reference  to 
the  same  thing,  in  a  secondary  sense;  or 
that   he  used    it   some   times   in  the    pri- 


204  DEBATE    ON    THE 

maiy,  and   some  times  in  the   secondary, 
sense. 

3.  The  primary  meaning  of  haptizo  is  un- 
questionably immerse. 

4.  If  the  Lord  used  the  word  haptizo  in- 
variably, to  express  what  was  to  be  dgne, 
used  it  in  its  j^rimary  sense,  and  the  prima- 
ry sense  is  immerse,  his  command  is  to  im- 
merse. 

If  the  gentleman  says  the  Lord  ever  used 
any  other  w^ord  to  express  literally  what 
was  to  be  done,  let  him  produce  that  word 
and  the  instance  where  it  was  used.  If  he 
says  the  word  is  used  in  any  but  the  pri- 
mary sense,  let  him  produce  the  instance. 
If  he  denies  that  immersion  is  the  primary 
meaning,  let  him  j)roduce  his  authority. 

But  I  shall  walk  out  boldly  and  stand 
upon  the  ground  of  Alexander  Carson, 
whose  cinticism  I  regard  as  the  simplest, 
most  profound  and  reliable,  on  this  word, 
of  any  I  ever  saw.  I  deny  that  hoptizo^ 
strictly  speaking,  means  ordinance,  purify, 
cleanse,  wash,  moisten,  or  any  thing  but 
dip,  no  matter  what  English  word  be  used 
to  express  it,  whether  plunge,  overwhelm, 
or  immerse.  It  has  no  such  meaning  as 
ordinance  in  it,  or  it  never  could  be  used 
where  there  is  no  ordinance.  Yet  we  all 
know  that  it  occurred  thousands  of  times 
in  the  writings  of  the  Greeks,  before  there 
was  any  such  rite  or  ordinance  as  we  are 
discussing.  It  occurs  Mark  vii.  4,  and  is 
translated  loash^  in   the   common   version, 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  205 

where  no  one  thinks  there  is  any  ordinance. 
The  same  word  precisely  is  used,  and  with 
the  same  meaning,  where  we  read  of  the 
baptism  of  sufferings,  of  the  Spirit,  and  of 
fire,  where  no  one  thinks  it  has  any  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinance.  This  shows  that 
the  word  does  not  mean  ordinance. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  FIRST  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

You  perceive  that  Mr.  Franklin  and  my- 
self have  changed  our  relative  positions 
this  morning.  It  now  devolves  upon  him  to 
give  shape  and  character  to  the  discussion. 
I  join  him  in  expressions  of  gratitude  to 
our  Heavenly  Father,  for  the  kind  provi- 
dence by  which  we  are  preserved  in  health 
and  safety,  to  renew  our  investigations ; 
and,  with  him,  I  desire  that  truth  and 
righteousness  may  prevail,  until  error  shall 
be  banished  from  the  earth. 

NothiLg  is  more  important,  on  this  occa- 
sion, than  that  we  conduct  ourselves  with 
dignity  and  propriety.  I  am  bound  in 
courtesy  to  treat  my  friend,  Mr.  Franklin, 
with  respect.  His  age,  experience,  and  po- 
sition, demand  that  I  should  always  allude 
to  Ixim  with  respect,  and  regard  his  opinions 
with  deference.  But  he  also  ought  to  feel 
himself  in  honor  bound  to  award  to  me 
honesty  and  sincerity.  Our  rules  of  deco- 
rum impose  this  duty  upon  him.     It  is  more 


206  DEBATE   ON  THE 

in  sorrow  than  in  anger  that  I  feel  myself 
impelled  to  point  out  his  aberrations.  There 
were,  however,  in  his  opening  address,  two 
such  gross  departures  from  propriety,  that 
I  must  not  let  them  pass.  The  first  was 
with  reference  to  the  form,  of  the  proposi- 
tion, which  is  stated  in  his  own  words. 
When  he  invited  me  to  discuss  the  subject 
of  Baptism,  I  told  him  plainly  that  when- 
ever he  would  affirm  in  debate  what  he  had 
affirmed  in  preaching,  and  in  regard  to 
which  he  had  so  earnestly  challenged  dis- 
cussion, I  would  hold  myself  ready  to  re- 
sj)ond  on  fair  and  honorable  terms.  To 
that  declaration  I  have  adhered,  in  letter 
and  spirit.  His  charge  in  the  correspon- 
dence, that  I  refused  to  defend  my  practice, 
was  in  bad  taste,  if  not  in  bad  humor ;  but 
when  he  reiterates  that  charge  in  his  open- 
ing speech,  I  confess  I  know  not  how  to 
characterize  his  conduct.  I  doubt  not  that 
he  feels  oppressed  with  the  task  he  has  ta- 
ken upon  himself,  but  his  proposition  rep- 
resents the  true  issue,  placing  the  orms  pro- 
handi  where  it  properly  belongs,  and  he  has 
no  right  to  complain.  I  am  astonished  to 
hear  him  comj)lainingly  insinuate  that  a 
mere  novice  in  polemics  has  taken  advan- 
tage of  him.  This  does  not  sound  well, 
coming  from  the  lips  of  so  experienced  a 
warrior.  The  second  point  to  which  I  re- 
fer, I  can  only  regard  as  an  undignified 
fling  at  our  proceedings  on  yesterday.  He 
insinuates  that  I  tried  to  "twist  out"  of  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  207 

meaning  of  the  word  "only."  I  meet  the 
charge  with  a  flat  denial,  and  excuse  the 
gentleman  on  the  ground  of  the  soreness 
he  feels,  in  reflecting  upon  the  past.  We 
will  see  whether  he  adheres  to  his  exclusive 
term,  in  the  strong  sense  he  attaches  to  it. 
If  he  does,  I  shall  certainly  not  object. 

The  first  thing  to  be  done,  is  to  ascertain 
the  precise  issue  between  us.  Mr.  Frank- 
lin has  not  presented  the  issue  just  as  it  is. 
He  has  assumed  that  the  word  baptize  ex- 
presses a  specific  action,  no  more  and  no 
less ;  but  this  is  the  point  he  is  to  prove. 
He  probably  anticipated  some  difficulty  in 
his  way,  and  took  particular  pains  to  in- 
form us  that  the  word  does  not  mean  "or- 
dinance." But  who  j^retends  that  the  word 
baptize  does  mean  ordinance  ?  I  do  not. 
There  is  one  thing,  however,  which  my 
friend  will  hardly  dispute.  It  is  that  the 
word  haptism  is  the  p>roper  name  of  an  ordi- 
nance. This  he  admits  ;  for  he  says  the 
word  baptize  "  expresses  the  thing  to  be 
done  in  administering  the  ordinance."  Bap- 
tism is,  therefore,  an  ordinance.  We  then 
agree  that  baptize  expresses  the  thing  to  be 
done  in  administering  the  ordinance ;  for 
the  thing  to  be  done  is  to  baptize;  but  the 
question  before  us  is  as  to  the  manner  of  do- 
ing this — the  manner  of  baptizing,  or  of 
administering  the  rite  of  baptism.  My 
friend  assumes  that  it  is  done  by  putting 
the  subject  entirely  under  the  water — by 
immersion,  and   by   immersion  only.     He 

15 


208  DEBATE    ON   THE 

claims  tliat  the  word  expresses  this  action 
specifically,  and  has  no  other  meaning. 
He  believes  that  immerse  is  precisely  the 
meaning  of  baptize,  and  that  it  exhausts  the 
meaning;  that  it  relates  to  mode,  and  only 
to  mode.  This  is  the  position  of  the  cele- 
brated Baptist  critic,  Alexander  Carson, 
whom  my  friend  so  highly  complimented 
before  he  sat  down.  I  was  happy  to  hear 
]Mr.  F.  so  heartily  endorse  Mr.  Carson,  for  I 
shall  find  use  for  some  of  his  learning  be- 
fore we  get  through.  It  will  be  perfectly 
admissable  for  me  to  quote  Carson,  but  for 
Mr.  F.  to  do  so,  looks  a  little  strange.  I 
never  quote  as  authorities,  any  of  my  own 
partisans.  Mr.  Carson  asserts  that  baptize 
is  "strictly  univocal."  He  devotes  an  en- 
tire section  to  proving  that  it  relates  to 
''hnode ;"  but  Mr.  F.,  with  less  learning,  and 
with  less  eminence,  takes  it  upon  himself 
to  repudiate  the  word  "mode,"  and  declares 
that  he  has  no  use  for  it  at  all !  But  the 
only  advantage  he  gained  is,  that  he  is  en- 
abled to  beg  the  question  with  a  little  more 
facility. 

The  real  question  is,  as  to  whether  bap^ 
tize  is  a  generic  or  a  specific  term.  We  must 
ascertain  this  before  we  can  determine  whe- 
ther it  expresses  the  mode  of  baptism,  or 
whether  it  relates  to  the  administration  of 
the  rite,  without  definitely  prescribing  the 
form  of  administration.  I  am  not  to  main- 
tain that  "sprinkle"  is  the  precise  idea  the 
word  conirtju-ti'^.  and  the  whole  idea;  nor  am 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  209 

I  to  show  that  "pour"  is  iDrecisely  synony- 
mous with  baptize.  If  I  show  you  that 
the  word  is  generic — that  it  is  the  proper 
name  of  an  ordinance,  and  relates  to  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance,  without 
definitely  prescribing  the  mode,  I  shall 
have  gained  my  point.  My  position  is  that 
the  manner  of  the  administration  is  to  be 
learned  outside  of  the  mere  word.  I  do  not 
say  we  are  left  in  the  dark  in  regard  to  the 
mode,  but  that  the  word  itself  does  not  ex- 
press the  specific  form  of  administration. 
With  these  remarks,  I  shall  recall  your  at- 
tention to  Mr.  Franklin's  nine  arguments. 

I.  "The  Lord  and  the  Apostles,  when 
they  expressed  that  which  was  to  be  done 
literally,  used  but  one  word."  The  thing 
to  be  done  was  to  administer  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  The  one  word  employed  in 
the  command  was  haptizo.  Mr.  F.  lays 
down  what  I  suppose  he  calls  an  axiom,  or 
self-evident  proposition,  and  evidently  re- 
lies upon  it  to  carry  him  through  his  diffi- 
cult undertaking.  Hence,  before  he  sat 
down  he  called  it  up  again,  and  tried  to  im- 
press it  by  repetition.  We  must  therefore 
look  it  full  in  the  face.  He  says,  "It  is  cer- 
tain a  word  can  never  have  but  one  mean- 
ing when  applied  to  one  thing."  Here, 
then,  is  the  argument :  A  word  can  never 
have  but  one  meaning  when  applied  to  one 
thing  ;  but  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles,  when 
speaking  of  baptism,  used  one  word  with 
reference  to  one  thing ;  therefore,  that  one 


210  DEBATE   ON   THE 

word  can  have  but  one  meaning.  Now  I 
hold  that  thegentleman's  argument  contains 
the  sophism  which  logicians  call  Petitio  Frin- 
cipii — a  begging  of  the  question.  I  dispute 
the  correctness  of  the  application  of  his  rule. 
"What  does  he  mean  when  he  says  a  word 
has  but  one  meaning?  Does  he  mean  that 
the  word  is  necessarily  uiiivocalf  This 
is  the  point  to  be  established  by  proof.  Or 
does  he  simply  mean  that  when  a  word  is 
used  in  a  given  sense  in  reference  to  a  cer- 
tain thing,  it  must  always  bear  that  sense, 
when  used  by  the  sj)eaker  with  reference 
to  that  thing  ?  Then  it  is  the  uniformity  of 
the  use  of  the  word,  he  is  aiming  at,  and 
not  its  specific  import.  Kow  let  us  apply 
the  rule  to  the  case  in  hand.  The  Savior 
uses  the  word  haptizo  with  reference  to  the 
rite  of  baptism.  When  he  uses  this  one 
word  with  reference  to  this  one  thing,  it 
must  have  one  meaning.  He  would  not  use 
it  in  one  sense  at  one  time,  and  in  another 
sense  at  another  time,  without  notice  of 
change.  Yery  good,  thus  far.  Then  if  he 
used  it  in  the  specific  sense  once^  with  refer- 
ence to  this  one  thing,  baptism,  he  used  it 
in  the  same  sense  always  when  speaking  of 
that  one  thing ;  but  if  he  used  it  in  the 
generic  sense  once^  when  sjoeaking  of  this  or- 
dinance, he  used  in  the  generic  sense  always 
when  sj^eaking  of  that  one  thing.  The 
question  is — In  which  sense  did  the  Lord 
and  the  Apostles  use  this  one  word,  when 
speaking  of  this  one  thing  ?    My  friend  as- 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  211 

sumes  that  it  was  in  the  specific.  This  I  de- 
ny. He  says  it  is  certain  that  the  Savior 
used  this  word  to  express  the  thing  to  be 
done;  but  does  he  mean  that  it  is  certain 
that  the  Savior,  by  using  this  word,  aimed 
to  give  specific  direction  as  to  the  mode  or 
manner  of  using  the  water  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  ordinance?  If  so,  I  dispute 
the  point,  and  call  for  the  proof.  This  is 
the  precise  issue  between  us.  Thus  in  eve- 
ry turn  he  gives  this  "argument,"  he  perpe- 
trates a  palj^able  sophism — begs  the  ques- 
tion. 

He  spent  some  time  in  defining  my  posi- 
tion. His  labor  was  for  nought.  I  claim 
the  privilege  of  defining  my  own  position. 
His  reference  to  the  "correspondence" 
showed  an  over-anxious  desire  to  strain  a 
point.  I  will  not  follow  him  into  these  di- 
gressions. He  would  spend  his  time  to 
better  advantage  by  defining  and  proving 
his  own  positions.  He  is  fond  of  talking 
about  my  "singular  predicaments."  If  he 
finds  any  comfort  in  it  I  am  willing  to  j)er- 
mit  him  to  enjoy  it.  His  allusion  to  men 
of  note  was  simply  ridiculous. 

II.  The  gentleman's  second  argument  is 
peculiar.  "  In  departing  from  the  appoint- 
ments of  God,  it  is  more  probable  that  they 
departed  from  the  more  laborious,  inconve- 
nient and  unpleasant,  to  the  more  easy,  con- 
venient and  pleasant."  The  gentleman  is 
anxious  to  make  his  position  look  even 
"  probable,"  but  so  far  as  this  "  argument  " 


212  DEBATE   ON   THE 

is  concerned,  the  facts  are  against  liim.  The 
tendency  of  human  nature  in  religious  mat- 
ters, is  from  the  inward  to  the  outward — 
from  the  spiritual  to  the  physical — from 
the  simple  and  j)lain  to  the  mysterious  and 
pompous.  Even  in  Paul's  day,  there  was 
a  strong  leaning  from  the  liberty  of  the 
gospel  to  the  "  yoke  of  bondage,"  which 
the  Apostles  had  to  rebuke.  Christianity 
was  never  more  burdensome  than  in  the 
midnight  of  the  dark  ages.  Immersion 
was  never  more  popular  than  when  super- 
stition and  error  overspread  the  church. 
It  enjoyed  almost  uninterrupted  sway  dur- 
ing the  first  half  of  that  dreadful  thousand 
years. 

"As  the  light  of  the  apostolic  age  re- 
ceded," the  idea  gained  possession  of  the 
leaders  in  the  church,  that  the  simple  rites 
of  Christianity  were  not  suflficiently  impres- 
sive. They  caught  the  spirit  of  the  world, 
and  as  they  mixed  the  philosophy  of  the 
schools  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  they 
sought  to  increase  the  influence  of  the  or- 
dinances of  the  gospel,  by  making  them 
conform  to  the  mysteries  of  the  pagan  tem- 
j)les.  They  were  governed  by  "  worldly 
wisdom  "  and  religious  fanaticism,  and  not 
by  the  desire  for  ease  and  convenience. 
They  regarded  baptism  as  a  spiritual 
cleansing  ;  and  as  they  lost  sight  of  its  true 
design  and  spiritual  import,  they  began  to 
reason  that  if  a  little  water  was  good,  more 
was    better,    and   then    came    immersion. 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  213^ 

Then  they  argued  that  as  baptism  was  a 
cleansing,  the  body  should  be  washed  and 
not  the  clothes  ;  then  came  to  the  practice  of 
immersing  the  subject,  in  |3?(;)"/s  naturalihua. 
Then  also  came  other  additions  to  the  rite 
as  practiced  to  this  day  by  the  Eomanists. 
But  I  need  not  point  them  out.  The  ten- 
dency has  always  been,  in  case  of  depart- 
ing from  the  divine  appointments,  to  add  to 
the  ordinances^  and  never  to  the  contrary. 
Hence,  my  friend's  second  argument  recoils 
with  crushing  weight  upon  himself. 

III.  His  third  argument  is,  "  that  the 
Discipline,  Mr.  Wesley,  and  my  humble 
self,  agree  with  him  that  immersion  is  bap- 
tism." Surely  then  my  friend  feels  well 
sustained  !  Why  did  he  not  tell  you  the 
ground  on  which  we  admit  that  immersion 
is  baptism  ?  Perhaps  he  wanted  me  to 
spend  my  time  in  doing  that.  Well,  per- 
haps I  may  satisfy  him  on  this  point  before 
we  close.  He  became  vehement  in  declaim- 
ing upon  the  awful  solemnity  of  the  act  of 
administering  baptism.  I  agree  to  all  this ; 
it  is  a  solemn  thing.  G-od  forbid  that  I 
should  ever  speak  lightly  of  it !  1  have 
not  a  word  to  say  against  the  validity  of 
immersion  for  baptism,  when  other  things 
are  all  right.  But  if  the  gentleman  expects 
me  to  agree  w^ith  him  that  immersion  is 
the  prescribed  mode,  or  that  it  was  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles,  he  is  simply 
mistaken. 

lY.  The   fourth   ''argument"   is,    "that 


214  DEBATE    ON    THE 

those    who   are   immersed    are    satisfied." 
But   are  no   others   satisfied?     He   admits 
that  they  are.     He  admits  also  that  there 
are  occasional  exceptions  to  his  rule.     It  is 
true  that  many  are  immersed  when  young, 
who,  after  they  get  older,  and  examine  the 
subject  for  themselves,  become  "satisfied" 
that    their    early    impressions  were   erro- 
neous ;  but  no  body  tries  to   disturb  their 
consciences  about  it.     I  venture  the  asser- 
tion  that  if  we    should  pursue   the   same 
course  in  regard  to  this  matter  that  immer- 
sionists  pursue,  our  labors  would  be  attend- 
ed with  the  same  results.     Were  I  to  go  to 
the  younger  members  of  the  churches  that 
practice    immersion    exclusively,    and   tell 
them  they  must   be  "sprinkled"    or  they 
never  could  obey  the  gospel,  and  then  be- 
labor them  until  I  got  them  confused   and 
excited,  I  could  produce  numerous  instances 
of  persons  dissatisfied  with  immersion.    He 
talks   about    people   becoming   dissatisfied 
when  sick  and   dying,   because  they  have 
not  been  immersed.     I  do  not  know  what 
his  experience  has  been,  but  I  have  never 
seen  such  a  case.     When  I  visit  the  sick,  I 
do  not  take  advantage  of  their  condition  to 
trouble  them  about  forms  and  ceremonies, 
or  disputed  dogmas,  but  try  to  point  them 
to  the  Redeemer,  as  the  only  refuge  of  sin- 
ners— the  only  hope  of  the  dying. 

But  Bomanists  are  satisfied  with  their 
baptism,  and  they  can  not  be  satisfied  to 
die   without    "  extreme    unction  j"    there- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  215 

fore  their  baptism  is  right,  and  "extreme 
unction  "  was  practiced  by  the  Apostles  ! 
"Will  my  friend  admit  this  argument?  1 
judge  not ;  and  yet  it  is  as  conclusive  as 
his  own, 

Y.  The  gentleman's  fifth  "  argument " 
was  drawn  from  the  practice  of  the  Grreek 
church.  He  admits  that  the  Greeks  have 
not  the  old  Greek  language,  in  which  the 
ISew  Testament  was  written,  but  he  thinks 
there  must  be  some  connection  between  the 
modern  and  ancient  Greeks,  that  enables 
the  moderns  to  understand  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament better  than  other  nations.  Now 
this  is  simply  gratuitous.  But  he  says  the 
Greek  church  "  has  kept  the  apostolic 
usage,  so  fir  as  this  action  is  concerned,  all 
the  time."  If  so,  Mr.  Franklin  has  lost  it, 
or  rather  never  had  it;  for  he  never  admin- 
istered baptism  as  the  Greek  church  prac- 
tices it,  since  he  was  born.  But  he  must 
say  the  "  Greeks  understand  their  own  lit- 
erature," etc.;  but  this  is  nothing  to  the 
point,  unless  he  proves  that  they  under- 
stand the  Greeh  of  the  New  Testament  hetter 
than  others.     Can  he  do  it?     Will  he  try? 

YI.  Mr.  Franklin's  sixth  "argument  "  is 
a  novelty.  "  IvTeither  sj)rinkling,  pouring, 
nor  any  thing  but  immersion,  for  baptism, 
is  mentioned  in  any  book  written  in  the 
first  two  hundred  years  of  the  Christian 
era."  Did  Mr.  Franklin  ever  see  a  book 
that  was  "  written  in  the  first  two  hundred 
years  of  the  Christian  era,"  in  which  immer- 


216  DEBATE    ON    THE 

sion  is  mentioned  for  baptism  ?  The  truth 
is  that  the  books  written  in  the  first  two 
hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era,  which 
have  survived  the  ravages  of  time,  and 
come  down  to  us,  are  very  scarce.  We 
know  very  little  of  what  was  written  by 
Christians  during  the  first  two  centuries. 
If  my  worthy  opponent  had  read  all  that 
has  come  down  to  the  present,  of  the  books 
then  written,  he  would  still  be  unprepared 
to  make  the  assertion  he  has  made,  and 
which  he  calls  his  sixth  argument.  We  are 
not  in  possession  of  the  records  of  the 
church  so  near  the  apostolic  age,  and  if  the 
mode  of  baptism  was  then  discussed,  we 
have  not  the  positions  nor  the  arguments 
of  the  parties.  Eut  Mr.  F.  can  not  find  a 
time  when  baptism,  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling, was  not  recognized  as  valid,  by  the 
authorities  of  the  church.  The  nearest 
approach  he  can  make  to  it,  will  be  in  the 
early  part  of  the  dark  ages — the  palmy 
days  of  immersionism.  Another  remarka- 
ble fact  is,  that  when  the  "fathers  "  began 
to  mention  immersion  for  baptism,  they  did 
not  exjoress  it  by  haj^tizo,  but  employed  an- 
other Grreek  term  for  that  purpose.  Mr. 
E.  will  have  to  "let  down"  a  little  from 
his  confident  tone,  and  his  bold  assertions, 
and  his  emphatic  repetitions,  touching  this 
point. 

VII.  "Immersion  Avas  invariably  prac- 
ticed by  all  professed  Christians  for  the 
first    thirteen    hundred   years."      This    is 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  217 

bare  assumption,  so  far  as  tlie  first  two  cen- 
turies are  concerned.  Immersion  is  not 
named  as  the  mode  of  baptism,  by  any 
writer  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us, 
so  far  as  I  am  informed ;  and  if  Mr.  Frank- 
lin can  produce  the  authority  for  his  bold 
assertion,  he  will  do  service  to  his  cause. 
Let  him  tell  us  who  informs  him  that  im- 
mersion was  the  invariable  practice  of  all 
professed  Christians,  at  that  early  period? 
We  want  the  authority  upon  this  point. 
The  opimon  of  later  writers  will  not  do. 
His  assertion  in  regard  to  cUnic  baptism, 
being  considered  invalid,  is  equally  unsup- 
j)orted  by  history.  It  is  perhaps  true  tliat 
persons  who  repented  on  sick  beds,  and 
submitted  to  baj^tism  when  they  thought 
they  were  about  to  die,  were  looked  upon 
with  a  little  suspicion ;  but  that  their  bap- 
tism was  ever  considered  invalid,  is  incor- 
rect. Had  that  been  the  obstacle  to  office- 
holding,  it  would  easily  have  been  removed, 
by  a  re -baptism.  Mr.  Franklin  would  soon 
have  taken  that  difficulty  out  of  the  way. 

YIII.  But  my  learned  friend  has  at 
length  reached  the  argument  which  Mr. 
Campbell  said  was  "  for  the  special  benefit 
of  the  more  uneducated."  It  is  founded 
upon  the  fact  that  "nothing  but  immersion,, 
or  some  word  of  the  same  import  can 
be  substituted  for  haptizo,  and  make  sense." 
The  gentleman  did  not  wish  to  read 
us  Mr.  Campbell's  language  right  out.  He  is 
a  little  modest  about  that ;  so  he  said  the 


218  DEBATE   ON   THE 

same  thing  in  diiferent  words  ;  but  to  tell 
the  truth  about  it,  1  like  Mr.  Campbell's 
version  better  than  his,  for  it  is  shorter 
and  more  sensible.  Mr.  Franklin,  says : 
"  It  is  a  rule  in  language,  or  in  interpreta- 
tion [he  seems  a  little  uncertain  whether 
the  rule  is  in  language,  or  in  interpreta- 
tion], that  the  proper  definition  of  a  word, 
inserted  for  that  word,  or  in  the  j)lace  of  it, 
will  make  sense  and  give  the  true  meaning 
to  the  reader."  This  is  a  little  ambiguous, 
but  Mr.  Campbell  speaks  out  like  a  master 
in  philology.  He  says,  "  The  definition  of  a 
word  and  the  ivord  itself,  are  always  converti- 
hle  terms  J' ^ 

I  shall  not  detain  to  inquire  into  the  cor- 
rectness of  Mr.  Campbell's  "first  precept  of 
the  decalogue  of  philology,"  but  remark, 
that  it  is  quite  likely  to  be  like  most  other 
general  rules  of  language — liable  to  excep- 
tions. But  the  difficulty  in  the  case  of  my 
friend  and  his  "  illustrious  predecessor," 
is  that  it  is  not  a  rule  for  defining  words  in 
our  own  language  we  want,  in  this  particu- 
lar instance,  but  a  rule  for  translating  words 
found  in  a  dead  language.  Mr.  Franklin, 
I  presume,  is  aware  that  there  are  some 
Greek  words  for  which  no  exact  equivalent 
can  be  found  in  English.  We  can  only . 
translate  them  by  employing  a  circumlocu- 
tion. When  my  friend  gets  so  far  enlight- 
ened as  to  perceive  that  haptizo  is  a  generic 
term,  he  will  discover  that  we  have  no  En- 
glish word  that  answers  so  precisely  to  it 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  219 

as  to  exhaust  its  meanin.c^,  as  found  in  ITew 
Testament  use ;  and  that,  consequently, 
our  translators  acted  wisely  in  not  trying 
to  translate  it.  It  is  the  divinely  appointed 
name  of  an  ordinance  ;  and  our  translators 
treated  it  as  a  name^  by  giving  it  an  Eng- 
lish termination,  and  transferring  it  to  our 
language  ;  so  that  we  have  this  rite  under 
the  divinely  appointed  7iame,  and  I  object 
to  giving  it  up  for  any  other  name.  I  call 
upon  my  friend,  and  all  other  advocates  for 
new  versions,  to  spare  to  us  uncorrupled, 
not  only  this  divine  ordinance,  but  its 
heaven-ordained  name ! 

The  gentleman  gave  us  several  quota- 
tions of  Scripture — not  however  as  proof- 
texts,  but  as  illustrations  of  his  rule  for  the 
ignorant — to  afford  some  amusement  by 
playing  upon  the  words,  "pour,"  "sprin- 
kle," "  immerse,"  etc.  Perhaps  the  gentle- 
man saw  something  profound  in  what  he 
said,  and  certainly  he  caused  some  to 
smile,  but  whether  the  intelligent  hearer 
smiled  at  the  wit,  or  at  the  man,  is  a  ques- 
tion I  shall  not  undertake  to  determine. 
Whenever  he  musters  up  courage  to  pre- 
sent any  of  the  cases  of  baptism  to  which 
he  alluded,  as  proofs  of  his  proposition,  I 
shall  certainly  be  along  with  him,  side  by 
side.  The  case  of  Philip  and  the  noble- 
man, the  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea,  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Grhost  and 
fire,  and  the  burial  by  baptism,  shall  all  be 
attended  to  in  due  time,  if  my  friend   will 


220  DEBATE   ON   THE 

advance  boldly  to  the  task  before  him.  I 
deny  the  correctness  of  his  rule  of  interjDre- 
tation  when  ajDplied  to  translations,  and 
call  upon  him  to  sustain  it  or  abandon  it. 
However,  as  he  followed  Mr.  Campbell,  I 
may  offset  that,  by  giving  him  one  examj^le 
furnished  by  Mr.  Camj)beirs  opponent. 
Take  the  word  "  circumcision,"  which  liter- 
ally means  "  to  cut  round,"  and  wherever 
you  find  circumcision  in  the  Scriptures, 
just  substitute  its  definition,  "to  cut  round," 
and  see  what  sort  of  sense  you  will  make. 
This  will  test  the  solidity  of  my  friend's 
argument  for  the  unlearned.  When  I  take 
the  ground  that  the  word  "sprinkled"  is 
an  equivalent  to  the  G-reek  baptizo,  the 
gentleman  may  aj)ply  his  "  rule "  with 
some  consistency.  The  use  he  has  made 
of  it,  instead  of  being  dignified  with,  the 
name  of  argument,  would  be  more  accu- 
rately described,  if  it  were  denominated  a 
pitiful  attemj^t  at  special  pleading. 

IX.  The  gentleman's  ninth  argument  is, 
"  that  the  lexicons  with  great  unanimity 
give  plunge,  dip,  overwhelm  or  immerse, 
as  the  first  definition,  or  the  jDrimary  mean- 
ing, of  the  word  haptizoy  But  suppose  I 
admit  all  this — what  then  ?  Here  is  the 
grand  mistake  of  Mr.  Franklin,  and  all 
who  belong  to  the  exclusive  school.  They 
assume  that  the  first  or  primary  meaning  of 
the  word,  is  to  decide  the  question  as  to 
the  sense  in  which  the  sacred  writers  used 
this  term.     But  this  is  unfounded  and  false. 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  221 

I  know  there  is  about  plausibility  enough 
in  the  proposition  to  strike  the  mind  favor- 
ably at  first  thought,  but  yet  I  know  it 
will  not  stand  the  test  of  rigid  examination. 
It  is  not  a  question  to  be  decided  by  lexi- 
cons. I  want  you,  my  hearers,  to  bear 
this  in  mind.  The  sense  to  be  attached  to 
this  word,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures,  with 
reference  to  this  religious  ordinance,  is  not 
to  be  decided  by  lexicons,  but  by  Bible 
usage.  My  appeal  is  to  Bible  use,  and  to 
Bible  use  alone.  Mr.  Campbell — I  mean 
Alexander  Campbell,  and  I  never  allude  to 
him  but  with  respect — says,  "Ko  learned 
man  will  ever  rest  his  faith  upon  dictiona- 
ries;" Debate  loith  Rice,  page  96.  Again — 
"  I  say  the  dictionaries  are  sometimes 
wrong,  and  that  I  can  prove.  So  say  all 
philologists  and  critics  of  eminence.  The 
lexicons  frequently  contradict  each  other 
on  various  points  ;"  Ibid  page  106.  Since 
the  gentleman  has  so  fully  endorsed  Mr. 
Carson  as  a  critic,  I  will  give  you  that 
learned  man's  opinion  of  the  authority  of 
lexicons.  In  his  chapter  on  the  burden  of 
proof,  in  speaking  of  a  definition  Dr.  John- 
son gives  of  the  word  Paradox^  Mr.  Carson 
says,  "  It  is  given  merely  on  the  authority 
of  etymology,  which  is  no  authority  at  all. 
Mere  contrariety  to  the  prevailing  opinion, 
is  not  a  2->aradox  in  the  sense  of  the  English 
language."  This  is  another  proof  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  caution  in  using  the  authority  of 
lexicons.     If  Dr.  Johnson  is  guilty  of  such 


222  DEBATE   ON   THE 

an  inaccuracy  in  the  account  of  the  mean- 
ing of  an  English  word,  what  may  we  not 
fear  from  lexicographers  in  dead  or  foreign 
languages?  Nothing  but  examples  from 
a  language  can  be  ultimate  proof  of  the 
meaning  of  words.  The  authority  of  lexi- 
cographers and  critics  is  only  secondary. 

]N"or  is  this  question  to  be  determined  by 
a];)peal  to  the  classics.  I  know  that  the 
classics  will  not  sustain  Mr.  Franklin's  po- 
sition, but  if  they  would,  the  question 
would  not  even  then  be  settled.  The  New 
Testament  Greek  is  not  classic  G-reek.  The 
primary  meaning  given  in  the  lexicons,  is 
the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  in  classic 
G-reek,  in  the  opinion  of  the  lexicographer; 
but  very  often,  these  same  lexicographers, 
who  give  sink  or  immerse,  as  the  first  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  classic  Greek,  give  what 
they  call  the  New  Testament  meaning,  and 
then  they  render  it  by  a  generic  term,  as 
wash^  cleanse  ov  purify.  They  give  these  as 
the  proper  meanings  of  the  term,  in  New 
Testament  use,  and  not  as  its  metaphorical 
or  secondary  meanings.  Hence,  my  friend's 
doctrine  can  neither  be  sustained  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  lexicons,  to  the  classics,  nor  to 
Bible  use.  My  position  is  that  the  Bible 
use  must  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  as  used  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apos- 
tles. Will  the  gentleman  stand  to  this  last 
appeal?  Will  he  determine  the  question 
by  the  Scriptures?  In  the  language  of  Mr. 
Carson,  "Nothing  but  examples  from  a  Ian-.- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  223 

guage  can  be  ultimate  proof  of  the  meaning 
of  words."  The  New  Testament  Greek  is 
the  language  from  which  the  examples 
mast  come.  The  Septuagint  version  of  the 
Old  Testament,  being  the  same  language, 
may  furnish  examples  that  will  be  author! « 
tative.  I  call  upon  my  friend  to  lead  the 
way  in  the  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  for  ex- 
amples by  which  to  settle  the  meaning  of 
this  word.  If  he  advances,  I  will  follow; 
but  if  he  does  not  advance,  I  may  find  it 
necessary  to  pursue  my  own.  course. 

The  gentleman  put  his  first  and  last  ar- 
guments together,  and  went  on  to  draw  in- 
ferences from  them,  as  though  they  were 
settled  points.  Thus  he  furnished  his  four 
numerical  proportions.  This  is  an  easy 
method  of  filling  up  the  time,  but  it  exhibits 
a  sad  want  of  logical  accuracy.  He  said, 
"  The  Lord  must  have  used  the  word  in  its 
first  sense,  or  primary  meaning."  This  is 
ambiguous,  and  calculated  to  mislead.  ]^o 
doubt  our  Savior  used  the  word  in  its  cor- 
rect and  proper  meaning,  when  applied  to 
the  religious  use  of  water ;  but  that  that  was 
the  first  and  primary  meaning,  is  far  from 
the  truth.  The  first  meaning  of  words  is 
not  always  the  correct  meaning.  AVill  my 
friend  dispute  this?  He  can  not!  The 
authorities  will  not  sustain  him.  Then  why 
make  all  this  ado  about  the  first  meaning 
of  the  word  ?  Is  not  the  use  of  words  in  a 
living  language  always  changing?  Is  it 
not  on  this  precise  ground  that  Mr.  Camp- 

16 


224  DEBATE   ON   THE 

bell  and  my  friend  advocate  a  new  transla- 
tion ?  If  the  gentleman  intends  to  support 
his  proposition  by  philological  disquisition, 
let  him  walk  into  j)hilology  like  a  man  ;  but 
if  he  intends  to  do  it  by  Bible  use,  let  him 
appeal  to  Bible  use. 

Having  thus  reviewed  Mr.  Franklin's 
speech,  and  sufficiently  answered  his  nine 
arguments  as  far  as  develojied,  I  will  pro- 
ceed to  lay  the  foundation  for  the  opposi- 
tion I  intend  to  bring  against  the  exclusive 
theory  of  my  friend,  and  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  scrij)tural  doctrine  of  Christian 
Baptism.  Permit  me  then  to  call  your  at- 
tention to  some  considerations  of  a  general 
character,  which  will  prove  useful  to  you, 
and  annoying  to  Mr.  Franklin,  throughout 
the  discussion. 

In  the  sublime  scheme  of  saving  Mercy, 
revealed  and  unfolded  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, we  find  two  distinct  features  present- 
ed for  our  contemplation — the  legal  and  the 
moral.  This  distinction  is  not  speculative. 
It  has  its  foundation  in  the  nature  of  things, 
and  is  seen  in  all  the  provisions,  agencies, 
and  developments  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ;  nor  can  it  be  overlooked  without 
confusing  all  our  ideas  of  the  Christian 
economy,  but  especially  of  the  ordinances 
of  the  church.  Guilt  and  defilement  are 
inseparable,  yet  there  is  a  difterence  in 
their  nature.  Defilement  follows  guilt  as 
the  eff'ect  follows  the  cause,  but  defilement 
and  guilt  are  no  more  identical  than  effect 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  225 

and  cause.  The  one  has  respect  to  the  di- 
vine law,  and  aifects  our  relation  to  that 
law,  but  the  other  pertains  only  to  our  na- 
ture, and  affects  the  passions  and  affections 
of  the  soul.  Accordingly,  we  find  in  the 
Scriptures,  two  classes  of  terms,  represent- 
ing the  legal  and  moral  aspects  of  the  saving- 
plan,  in  actual  adaptation  to  the  wants  of 
the  soul,  which  is  to  be  saved  both  from 
condemnation  and  depravity.  The  first 
class  consists  of  words  like  these :  ^in, 
transgression,  guilt,  condemnation  ;  par- 
don, remission,  justification,  etc.;  these  are 
forensic  terms,  relating  to  the  legal  part  of 
the  work  of  salvation.  The  second  class 
consists  of  the  following:  Uncleanness,  pol- 
lution, defilement ;  cleanse,  wash,  j^urify, 
sanctify,  etc.;  these,  you  perceive,  are  of 
different  imj^ort  from  those  of  the  first 
class,  and  relate  entirely  to  the  moral  part 
of  our  salvation.  But  the  provision  is  made 
for  sin  and  for  uncleanness.  When  Jesus 
died,  there  issued  from  his  side  both  Hood 
and  water.  Hence  God  can  forgive  and 
cleanse.  There  is  in  the  gospel  pardon  and 
jpurity ;  we  may  be  justified  and  sanctified. 
The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  our  salvation 
were  in  the  law  and  in  us.  Those  in  the 
law  were,  of  course,  legal ;  those  in  us  were 
Tnoral.  The  first  are  removed  by  pardon  ; 
the  second  by  sanctification.  One  is  just 
as  important  as  the  other. 

Corresponding  with  the  legal  and  moral 
parts  of  the  work  of  salvation,  we  find  two 


226  DEBATE   ON   THE 

divine,  personal  Agents  employed  in  its 
accomj)lishment — the  Son  and  the  Spirit. 
All  that  is  legal  in  the  work  of  salvation, 
pertains  to  the  office  of  the  Son  of  God, 
as  Redeemer  and  Mediator,  and  is  effected 
by  his  death,  resurrection  and  intercession  ; 
and  all  that  is  moral^  to  be  done  in  the 
heart,  pertains  to  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  is  effected  by  the  personal  agen- 
cy of  him  who  searcheth  all  things — yea, 
the  deep  things  of  Grod.  The  provision  for 
salvation,  is  all  through  the  Son  ;  the  appli- 
cation of  the  provision,  is  all  by  the  Spirit. 
That  the  offices  of  the  Son  and  Spirit  are 
thus  really  distinct,  is  too  plain  to  admit  of 
dispute.  JSTo  man  can  confound  them  in 
his  mind,  without  confusing  his  concep- 
tions of  the  remedial  scheme,  bewildering 
his  understanding  and  exposing  himself  to 
the  vagaries  of  wild  and  visionary  error- 
ists,  or  the  crude  dogmatisms  of  ignorance 
and  fanaticism.  But  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  work  of  the  Son  and  that  of  the 
Spirit,  is  no  more  plain  and  important 
than  that  between  the  legal  and  mora?  j)arts 
of  the  plan  of  salvation. 

Corresponding  to  the  offices  of  the  Son 
and  Spirit,  and  to  the  legal  and  moral,  in 
the  saving  plan,  we  find  in  the  typical  in- 
stitutions of  the  former  dispensations,  two 
distinct  classes  of  ceremonial  rites  and 
services,  namely,  bloody  sacrifices  and 
^^atery  ablutions — pointingto  the  blood  and 
water  which  flowed  from  the  side  of  Jesus, 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  227 

and  adumbrating  onr  salvation  from  sin  by 
j)ardon,  and  from  iincleanness  by  sanctifica- 
tion.  The  bloody  sacrifices  typified  the 
redeeming  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  wa- 
tery ablutions  typified  the  cleansing  in- 
fluence and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
"sprinkled"  blood  of  the  victims  slain 
upon  Jewish  altars,  derived  its  value  and 
efficacy  from  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling  that 
speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel;" 
and  the  "sprinkled"  water  of  purification 
derived  its  significancy  from  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  Grod,  which  is  shed  forth  abun- 
dantly for  the  moral  purification  of  the 
soul.  But  when  the  blood  of  Jesus  was 
shed,  the  typical  blood  lost  its  meaning; 
and  when  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given,  after 
Jesus  was  glorified,  the  typical  use  of  water 
was  no  longer  needed.  The  types  were 
now  fulfilled  in  the  antitypes.  But  what 
becomes  of  these  types  ?  iS'ow  that  tyj^es 
are  no  longer  needed,  what  is  to  be  done? 
Are  we  to  be  left  without  any  external 
emblems  of  the  work  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Spirit?  Is  the  blood  of  Jesus  to  be  for- 
gotten, and  no  more  to  be  represented  to 
the  outward  sense,  to  direct  the  qjq  of  faith 
to  the  suffering,  bleeding  lamb  ?  Is  water 
no  longer  to  represent  the  pouring  out  and 
the  cleansing  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 
Are  all  emblems  to  be  abandoned?  What 
say  the  Scriptures  ? 

Answering  to  the  feast  of  the  passover, 
and  to  all  the  bloody  sacrifices  by  which 


228  DEBATE   ON   THE 

our  Savior's  death  was  typified,  we  find  no 
longer  a  typical  but  a  commemorative  rite 
instituted  by  Jesus  himself,  in  which  bread 
and  wine  are  the  ordained  emblems  of  his 
body  and  blood,  by  the  eating  and  drinking 
of  which  we  show  forth  his  death  till  he 
comes.  This  commemorative  rite,  which 
we  call  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  ofiice  and  work  of  Christ; 
it  points  to  his  sufi'erings  and  death,  fixes 
the  mind  uj)0n  the  cross,  and  signifies 
to  our  faith  all  our  Savior  did  and  suf- 
fered for  our  redemption.  It  relates  to  all 
that  was  Ugal  in  the  work  of  bringing  re- 
volted man  back  to  God ;  but  it  has  no 
reference  to  the  ofiice  and  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  work  of  the  Spirit  was 
never  typified  by  blood,  and  is  never  sym- 
bolized by  wine.  The  death  of  Jesus  took 
place  once  and  is  never  to  be  repeated ;  but 
it  is  commemorated  by  a  inte  to  be  celebrated 
often.  On  the  other  hand,  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  is  a  continuous  work ;  it  is  not  past, 
but  present ;  hence,  it  is  not  shown  forth 
in  a  commemorative  rite,  but  is  symbolized 
by  a  rite  which  is  not  repeated,  but  which 
retains  its  significancy  during  the  whole 
period  of  life.  That  rite  is  baptism.  It  re- 
lates to  the  ofiice  and  work  of  the  Spirit. 
Hence  the  Apostles  were  not  permitted  to 
administer  this  rite  under  the  gospel  com- 
mission until  the  Spirit  was  given  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  But  the  Spirit  was  given 
in  a  two-fold  sense — the  ordinary  and  the 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  229 

extraordinary.  The  first  was  enlightening, 
purifying,  saving;  the  second  was  miracu- 
lous. Accordingly  there  were  two  emblema- 
tic representations — water  and  fire.  The  first 
represents  the  common,  saving  influences 
of  the  Sj^irit,  and  continues  to  be  adminis- 
tered in  the  church ;  the  second  represented 
the  miracle-working  power  of  the  Spirit, 
and  was  administered  by  Christ  himself,  at 
the  opening  of  the  gospel  dispensation, 
once  for  all.  But  the  use  of  the  fire  was 
baptism,  and  the  use  of  water  is  baptism. 
The  fire  sat  upon  the  head,  the  Holy  Ghost 
fell  upon  those  who  received  it,  and  the 
water  represents  the  whole. 

The  religious  use  of  water  among  the 
Jews,  which  was  emblematic  of  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  soul,  had  long  been  called  bap- 
tism;  this  was  th.Q  general  name  for  their 
purifications,  which  consisted  of  different 
appUcatioRs  of  water.  It  was  in  view  of 
this  fact,  an  inspired  Apostle,  when  speak- 
ing of  these  Jewish  purifications,  called 
them  diapliorois  haptismois—Hi^QVQTit  bap- 
tisms. Our  Savior  took  this  existing  in- 
stitution, as  it  had  been  practiced  by  the 
Jews,  and  by  his  own  harbinger,  John,  and 
clothed  it  with  his  divine  authority  and 
sanction,  raising  it  to  the  dignity  of  a 
sacramental  rite,  and  made  it  the  only 
standing  symbol  of  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  moral  renovation  of  the  heart. 
We  have,  therefore,  "  One  Baptism,"  in 
place  of   the  diaphorois   haptlsmols   of  the 


230  DEBATE    ON   THE  ' 

former  dispensation.  And  as  the  Lord's 
supper  relates  to  the  legale  so  baptrsm  re- 
lates to  the  moral  part  of  the  saving  pro- 
cess. 

Here  we  see  the  grand  reason  why  there 
are  two  sacraments  in  the  chnrch,  and  only 
two.  Here  we  behold  the  beanty,  the  sim- 
2:)licity  and  the  real  glory  of  the  gospel 
scheme,  in  its  wonderful  adaptation  to  the 
legal  and  moral  relationshij)s  and  wants  of 
mankind  !  And  here,  too,  we  discover  the 
confusion  and  embarrassment  that  must 
overwhelm  all  who  overlook  the  true  and 
only  foundation  of  the  sacraments,  as  here 
set  forth,  in  the  legal  and  moral  aspects  of 
the  Christian  system. 

Baptism  can  not  be  a  symbol,  or  figurative 
representation  of  the  death,  burial,  and  res- 
urrection of  Christ ;  for  these  are  repre- 
sented by  the  Lord's  supper,  and  baptism 
relates  not  to  Christ,  but  to  the  Holy  Spir- 
it. Neither  can  the  Lord's  supper  repre- 
sent the  purification  of  the  heart ;  for  that 
is  done  by  the  Spirit  and  represented  by 
baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper  relates  not 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  to  Christ.  The 
death  of  Jesus  is  the  foundation  of  the 
Lord's  supper ;  and  the  supper  derives  its 
significancy  and  value,  not  from  the  man- 
ner of  its  administration,  but  from  that 
which  it  represents ;  hence  the  manner  of 
its  administration  is  not  set  forth  as  a  mat- 
ter essential  to  the  validity  of  the  rite.  So 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  founda- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  231 

tion  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  bap- 
^tisni  derives  its  sifi^nificancy  and  value,  not 
from  the  manner  of  administration,  but 
from  the  work  of  the  Spirit  which  it  repre- 
sents ;  hence  the  manner  of  administration 
is  not  set  forth  as  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  ordinance.  Had  the  manner  of  ad- 
ministering baptism  been  deemed  essential 
to  the  rite,  the  sacred  writers  would  have 
made  the  mode  so  conspicuous  and  plain 
that  there  never  would  have  been  ground 
for  dispute  in  regard  to  it ;  but  instead  of 
this,  not  one  of  them  ever  deemed  it  im- 
portant so  much  as  to  tell  us  precisely  how 
it  was  done !  Would  one  of  our  modern 
immersionist  scribblers  have  left  the  sub- 
ject as  did  the  holy  Apostles  ?  But  while 
the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  definitely  j)re- 
scribed,  we  are  not  in  the  dark  in  reference 
to  it,  as  we  will  see  in  the  further  prosecu- 
tion of  our  investigations.  From  the  Bible 
use  of  the  word,  and  the  recorded  baptisms 
of  the  New  Testament,  I  intend  to  de- 
monstrate the  absolute  falsity  of  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's exclusive  notions.  I  give  him  fair 
warning  of  this,  that  he  may  prepare  to  en- 
dure it  with  fortitude. 

I  call  your  attention,  then,  directly  to 
this  word  haptizo.  What  is  its  character? 
Is  it  a  specific  term,  expressing  nothing 
but  mode,  or  is  it  generic?  I  take  the  ground 
that  it  is  a  generic  word.  Mr.  Carson  says 
it  is  ^'■strictly  iinivocal.'^  If  SO,  it  is  a  word 
of  one  meaning  only.     Mr.  Franklin  takes 


232  DEBATE   ON   THE 

the  same  ground ;  for  he  tells  us  that  tie 
"walks  out  boldly"  upon  Mr.  Carson's  posi- 
tion. If  it  is  "strictly  univocal,"  having 
but  one  meaning,  it  is  useless  to  talk  about 
its  primary  or  first  meaning,  for  it  can  have 
no  other.  If  it  is  strictly  univocal,  the 
lexicons,  which  give  it  several  different 
meanings,  are  all  wrong ;  the  Bible  use  is 
wrong,  and  classic  use  is  wrong ;  for  in  all 
these  there  are  different  meanings  attached 
to  it.  But  Mr.  Franklin  cannot  sustain  this 
position.  Mr.  Carson,  with  more  learning 
and  critical  skill  than  my  friend  possesses, 
failed  to  do  it.  He  grappled  vigorously 
with  the  stubborn  facts  that  stood  in  his 
way,  but  the  facts  would  not  yield. 

K  generic  term  is  one  which  comprehends 
a  genus  or  kind.  Officer  is  a  generic  term. 
We  say  a  man  is  an  officer  in  the  army, 
but  by  this  term  we  do  not  specify  the  grade 
of  office  he  holds.  He  may  be  Major,  Gren- 
eral.  Colonel,  or  Captain  ;  in  either  case  he 
is  an  officer.  Officer  is  generic,  but  Cap- 
tain is  specific.  We  say  a  man  washed  him- 
self. Wash  is  a  generic  term;  the  operation 
may  be  performed  in  different  ways,  and 
the  term  wash  does  not  specify  the  mode. 
The  specific  term  that  would  express  the 
mode  must  be  included  in  the  generic,  but. 
it  does  not  exhaust  its  meaning.  Just  so 
with  haptizo.  It  tells,  in  general,  the  thing 
to  be  done,  but  not  the  way  to  do  it.  The 
term  that  defines  the  mode  must  be  em- 
braced or  included  in  the  generic  word  hap- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  233 

tizo^  but  it  does  not  exhaust  its  meaning. 
It  is  not  an  equivalent  to  the  geDeric  term; 
hence  it  may  not  be  substituted  for  it. 
Here  we  see  the  error  in  the  application  of 
Mr.  Campbell's  rule,  that  '-the  definition  of 
a  word  and  the  word  itself,  are  always  con- 
vertible terms  ;"  which  Mr.  Franklin  adopt- 
ed as  his  eighth  argument.  Immerse, 
sprinkle,  and  pour,  are  included  in  baptizo ; 
but  neither  of  them  exhaust  its  meaning. 
They  are  not  equivalents,  and  cannot  be 
substituted  for  baptizo  without  confusion. 
When  I  assert  that  baptizo  is  used  when  it 
means  or  includes  pouring,  I  do  not  mean 
that  pouring  is  precisely  synonymous  with 
baptizo.  Hence,  Mr.  Franklin  did  not  pre- 
sent the  real  issue  at  this  point.  I  ask  him 
distinctly,  in  your  presence.  Does  immerse 
exhaust  the  meaning  of  baptizo?  If  so,  it 
relates  to  the  abstract  idea  of  sinking  be- 
neath the  fluid,  and  has  no  reference  to  re- 
sults. It  is  without  signification ;  and  what- 
ever else  beside  the  abstract  idea  of  being 
covered  with  water,  may  be  included  in  or 
necessary  to  the  ordinance,  nothing  of  the 
kind  is  expressed  by  the  command  to  bap- 
tize. This  is  strong  ground,  but  Mr  Frank- 
lin has  committed  himself  to  it,  and  is 
bound  to  sustain  himself  if  he  can. 

If  baptizo  is  thus  strictly  univocal,  the 
corresponding  noun,  baptismos^  must  be  like- 
wise ;  but  I  intend  to  show  you  that  both 
the  verb  and  noun  are  used  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, not  only  in  the  generic  sense,  but  so 


234  DEBATE   ON   THE 

fis  to  actually  exclude  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion. I  now  call  your  attention  to  Mark 
vii.  4  :  '-And  when  they  come  from  market, 
except  they  wash  (ean  me  haptisontai)  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be, 
"which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
washing  (haptismous)  of  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables."  It  is  general- 
13^  conceded  that  the  last  word,  klinoii, 
means  couches  or  beds.  In  regard  to  these 
baptisms,  I  remark  : 

1.  They  were  religious  observances  ;  and 
this  being  the  case,  immersion  was  Bot  ne- 
cessary to  meet  their  design,  which  was 
ceremonial  purification.  In  market,  the 
Jews  thought  themselves  liable  to  contact 
with  Gentiles  and  other  unclean  persons, 
so  as  to  contract  uncleanness,  in  the  reli- 
gious sense.  To  guard  against  this,  they 
adopted  the  practice  of  haptizing  themselves, 
whenever  they  returned  from  market,  be- 
fore eating.  These  ceremonial  purifica- 
tions, here  called  baptizing,  were  not  re- 
quired to  be  done  by  immersion,  neither  by 
the  law  nor  by  the  end  to  be  obtained. 

2.  ^\\Q  frequency  oiiliQEQ  baptisms  afi'ords 
strong  presumptive  proof  that  they  were 
not  by  immersion.  They  occurred  on  re- 
turning from  market  and  before  eating. 
The  conveniences  for  immersion,  and  the 
necessary  change  of  raiment,  could  not  al- 
ways be  had. 

3.  The  beds  or  couches  could  not  be  im- 
mersed.    This  is  jDlain  and  important. 


ACTION   OF  BAPTISM.  235 

4.  The  water-pots  used  by  the  Jews,  such 
as  are  mentioned  in  John  ii.  6,  which  were 
"  after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the 
Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins 
apiece,"  were  not  of  the  capacity  to  admit 
of  immersion. 

I  also  ask  attention  to  Hebrews  ix.  10: 
"Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and 
divers  washings  (diai^lwrois  haptismois)  and 
carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the 
time  of  reformation."  I  have  only  time  now 
to  remark,  that  the  baptisms  here  mentioned, 
consisted  of  different  ablutions  "imposed" 
by  the  ceremonial  law  ;  and  not  one  of  all 
these  washings  can  be  shown  to  have  been 
by  immersion,  while  some  of  them  are 
hnoioii  to  have  been  by  sprinhling.  In  every 
one  of  them  where  the  manner  of  using  the 
water  is  prescribed,  it  is  by  sprinkling  ;  and 
in  the  others,  where  the  mode  is  not  pre- 
scribed, the  matter  is  expressed  by  a  generic 
ferm,  properly  rendered  loasli ;  but  baptis- 
mois  is  the  generic  term  which  comprehends 
them  all,  while  the  accompanying  term, 
diaphorois,  excludes  Mr.  Carson's  idea  that 
the  word  is  strictly  univocal.  I  invite  Mr. 
Franklin  to  lead  the  way  in  this  appeal 
"to  the  law  and  the  testimony."  I  hope 
he  will  stir  up  his  strength  and  come  to  the 
rescue  of  his  exclusive  system,  pouring 
upon  our  investigations  that  flood  of  light 
which  he  is  reputed  to  possess.  His  friends 
exj^ect  it,  his  cause  demands  it,  we  all  de- 
sire it,  and  certainly  we  may  look  that  he 


236  •  DEBATE    ON   THE 

will  do  all  that  can   be  done  to  maintain 
his  exclusive  proposition. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  SECOND   SPEECH. 

GentlEx^ien  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  was  am  as  ed  at  the  worthy  gentleman, 
speaking  of  my  age  and  his  being  a  mere 
novice  in  debate.  It  did  not  before  occur  to 
me  that  I  had  any  particular  advantage  of 
him  in  years.  This,  I  presume,  was  only 
intended  as  a  playfal  expression  to  which  I 
certainly  could  have  no  objection.  I  am 
truly  happy  to  learn  that  he  has  attained 
to  a  sufficient  age  and  boldness  in  the 
Methodistic  faith  to  have  the  confidence  of 
his  brethren.  As  to  the  advantage  he  has 
in  the  proposition,  it  is  one  that  I  was  com- 
pelled to  give  him  or  have  no  debate.  I 
deemed  it  necessary  to  allude  to  it  in  my 
opening  speech,  not  so  much  by  way  of 
complaint,  as  explanatory  of  my  position, 
in  affirming  a  negative.  His  remark  that 
the  proposition  is  in  my  own  words,  is  cer- 
tainly without  thought.  It  is  true,  I  wrote 
the  words  ;  but  any  one  can  see  from  the 
correspondence  that  I  simply  accepted  a 
proposition  previously  proposed  by  him, 
with  a  mere  verbal  change,  after  he  utterly 
refased  to  accept  mine. 

Whether  the  gentleman  tried  to  twist  out 
of  the  meaning  of  the  word  ohli/  I  am  will- 
ing to  leave  to  this  largo  and   intelligent 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  237 

aiidienco  to  decide.     I  am  under  no  mis- 
take in  this  matter  certainly. 

Mr.  M.  thinks  I  have  not  stated  the  issue 
as  it  is  ;  but  I  am  not  conscious  of  mis- 
stating it.  He  is  anxious  to  get  into  a  dis- 
quisition on  specific  and  generic  actions,  but 
I  have  purposely  avoided  these  words,  so 
convenient  for  mystification,  and  have 
aimed  to  use  the  most  simple  terms  I  could 
possibly  employ,  I  am  determined  to  be 
understood  and  to  have  the  subject  we  are 
discussing  understood.  He  may,  therefore, 
prepare  to  stand  out  in  clear  day-light.  I 
stated  that  haptlzo  does  not  mean  ordinance. 
This  he  admits.  What  does  it  mean,  then? 
It  means  an  action.  It  is  the  action^  or  the 
thing  done,  in  administering  the  rite  or  ordi- 
nance. The  action  expressed  by  this  word, 
or  the  thing  done  in  baptizing,  may  be  per- 
formed thousands  of  times  where  there  is 
no  ordinance  or  rite.  The  Jews  baptized 
cups  as  perfectly  as  ever  any  thing  was 
baptized;  yet  there  was  no  ordinance  or 
rite  in  it.  Baptize  is  not  the  proper  name 
of  the  ordinance,  for  you  can  not  learn  from 
that  word  alone,  whether  there  is  any  ordi- 
nance or  not ;  but  you  must  find  some  other 
word,  or  words,  before  you  know  whether 
the  rite  is  spoken  of  or  not.  There  is  no  such 
meaning  as  rite,  or  ordinance,  in  the  word 
haptizo ;  for  even  in  the  New  Testament  we 
have  to  find  other  information  with  that 
word,  before  we  know  there  is  any  refer- 
ence to  the  rite.     The  word,  therefore,  does 


238  DEBATE    ON   THE 

not  mean  ordinance,  rite,  nor  ceremony,  but 
an  action,  or  a  thing  done  ;  and  that  one 
word,  used  in  reference  to  that  one  thing, 
can  have  but  one  meaning.  That  one 
meaning  is  not  sj^rinkling,  nor  pouring,  but 
immersing. 

What  offset  did  the  gentleman  make 
against  my  second  argument?  Did  he 
deny  the  fact,  that  if  sprinkling  was  the 
ancient  practice,  they  must  have  aposta- 
tized from  it,  till  immersion  became  almost 
universal  ?  He  did  not.  Did  h«  give  you 
an  instance  where  the  clergy  ever  departed 
from  the  easy,  convenient  and  pleasant,  to 
the  laborious,  inconvenient  and  unpleasant, 
in  that  which  they  had  to  perform  with 
their  own  hands?  He  did  not.  Did  he 
deny  the  fact  that  the  dark  ages  run  im- 
mersion almost  entirely  out,  and  that  the 
light  of  reformation  is  restoring  it  again  ? 
He  did  not.  But  he  hinted  j)retty  strongly 
that  he  considered  immersion  a  pagan  cere- 
mony ;  yet  he  will  perform  it,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  and  call  it  baptism  !  He  talks 
of  adding  to  the  ordinance^  in  departing 
from  divine  appointments,  and  never  tak- 
ing from  them  !  Has  he  not  admitted  that 
the  Eomanists  immersed  for  a  thousand 
years,  and  attempted  to  ridicule  it,  by 
si)eaking  of  "  immersing  the  subject  mpwr/s 
naturalih^is  V  Certainly  he  did  ;  and  yet  he 
knows  that  when  Eomish  darkness  reached 
its  greatest  prevalence,  it  run  immersion 
almost  out;  and  since  the  light  of  reforma- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  239 

tion  has  again  appeared,  immersion  has 
gradually  gained  ground  in  about  the  same 
l^roportion  as  light  has  advanced. 

The  worthy  gentleman  has  not  a  word 
to  say  against  immersion  as  valid  baptism  ! 
You  see,  then,  that  my  third  argument  from 
Mr.  "Wesley,  the  DisciiDline,  and  his  own  ad- 
mission, is  admitted.  They  all  agree  with 
me,  that  immersion  is  right.  But,  after 
agreeing  with  me,  that  immersion  is  right, 
he  makes  a  shift  that  I  am  truly  sorry  to 
hear.  It  is  not  valid  because  it  is  the  pre- 
scribed mode,  nor  because  it  was  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Apostles  !  How,  then,  in  the 
sacred  name  of  reason  and  religion,  does  he 
admit  that  it  is  valid  and  administer  it  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  ?  The  Lord  did  not 
prescribe  it !  The  Apostles  did  not  prac- 
tice it !  Yet  he  will  administer  it,  in  the 
awful  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit!  !  !  This  is  shock- 
ing !  It  is  not  prescribed,  and  was  not 
practiced  by  the  Apostles  ;  yet  he  will  lift 
his  hand  to  heaven  and  administer  it  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  saying,  "  I  baptize,"  etc. ! 
This  is  truly  elastic  !  pliable  ! 

The  gentleman  did  not  meet  my  fourth 
argument.  The  immersed  are  satisfied,  in 
life  and  in  death.  Large  numbers  of  the 
sprinkled  are  not.  How  does  he  account 
for  this  ?  He  does  not  persuade  those  im- 
mersed that  they  have  not  obeyed  the  Lord- 
in  baptism  !  There  is  a  good  reason  why 
he  does  not  y  for  he  believes  they  have  obej^- 

17 


240  DEBATE   ON   THE 

ed  the  Lord  in  baptism.  Immersion  is  not 
in  doubt;  it  is  not  in  dispute.  Here  is  the 
reason  he  and  thousands  of  other  preachers 
can  not  satisfy  tlieir  own  members  with 
sprinkling.  It  is  eternally  in  debate — in 
doubt.  His  effort,  on  this  occasion,  is  to 
satisfy  this  people  with  the  doubtful,  while 
they  could  have  the  indisputable. 

The  gentleman  did  not  invalidate  my  ar- 
gument from  the  j)ractice  of  the  Greek 
church.  He  alludes  to  their  trine  immer- 
sion, I  suppose,  in  his  confident  statement, 
that  I  had  never  baptized  as  they  do.  But 
it  matters  not  how  many  times  they  dip. 
They  have  had  but  the  one  G-reek  word  to 
express  the  action,  and  no  matter  how 
many  changes  their  language  has  gone 
through,  that  word  has  not  changed,  nor 
has  their  understanding  of  it  changed.  It 
means  immerse,  and  they  continue  to  im- 
merse. 

When  I  stated  that  sprinkling  or  pouring 
for  baptism  was  not  mentioned  in  any  book 
written  in  the  first  or  second  centuries,  I 
did  not  anticipate  quite  such  a  little  and 
weak  evasion  as  that  employed  by  Mr.  M. 
Did  he,  or  any  one  who  heard  me,  think 
that  I  was  confining  myself  simply  to  the 
original  manuscript?  He  appeared  so  to 
understand  me  ;  hence  his  wise  question  as 
to  whether  I  had  seen  such  writing.  I 
have  seen  the  JSTew  Testament,  and  it  was 
written  in  the  given  time,  and  translated 
into    English,   and  sprinkling  or  pouring 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  241 

for  baptism,  is  not  found  in  it.  I  have  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  standing  iipon  ray- 
shelf,  translated  into  English,  and  neither 
sprinkle  or  pour  is  found  in  these  for 
baptism.  I  have  other  works,  and  have 
seen  many,  and  know  that  what  I  am 
"saying  is  reliable.  The  original  words 
for  sprinkle  and  pour  are  found  in  nu- 
merous instances  in  these  works,  and 
even  in  the  New  Testament,  but  are 
never  used  for  baptism  ;  but  the  original 
word  for  immerse  is  med  for  baptism  inva- 
riahhj.  He  says  I  cannot  find  a  time  when 
sprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptism  was  net 
valid.  For  the  first  three  centuries,  there 
was  not  one  word  written  about  sj)rinkling 
or  pouring  for  baptism,  so  far  as  we  can 
find,  and  no  such  practice  was  in  existence. 
I  have  never  said  that  immersion  is  the 
mode  of  baptism,  or  that  it  is  mentioned  as 
such,  in  the  early  Christian  writings.  I 
know  it  is  not.  Immersion  is  baptism; not 
a  mode  of  it.  You  might  as  well  say  im- 
mersion is  a  mode  of  immersion,  as  that  im- 
mersion is  a  mode  of  baptism.  There  was 
not  one  word  about  mode  during  the  first 
two  centuries,  for  the  good  reason  that 
Mystery  Babylon  had  not  introduced  the 
innovation  that  created  the  necessity  for 
the  word  mode.  He  wishes  me  to  tell  him 
who  informed  me  that  immersion  was  in- 
variably practised  in  the  first  two  centuries. 
I  will  simply  reply,  that  ]\Iosheim  tells  me 
BO,  and  many  other  distinguished  authori- 


242  DEBATE    ON   THE 

ties,  whicli  I  can  produce,  if  he  desires  to 
hear  them. 

My  statement,  touching  cUnics,  "was  not 
that  they  did  not  tliink  tlieir  baptism  valid, 
but  that  they  did  not  allow  them  to  hold 
office.  It  was  not  their  sick-bed  repent- 
ance that  made  them  ineligible  to  office,  for 
the  most  of  them  were  infants,  who  had  no 
sick-bed  repentance,  or  any  other  kind. 

What  an  unaccountable  word  haptizo  is  ! 
that  we  have  no  word  that  will  exhaust  its 
meaning !  that  it  cannot  be  translated  but 
by  a  circumlocation  !  1  am,  in  this  case, 
like  the  man  who  asked  the  Mormon  to  do 
a  miracle;  to  whom  the  Mormon  replied, 
"A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation;  you 
seek  a  sign  ;  but  no  sign  shall  be  given  you, 
but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah;"  to 
which  the  man  replied,  "  That  will  do  as 
well  as  any.  Give  us  the  sign  of  Jonah." 
If  no  translation  of  hapti?:o  can  be  given, 
but  by  a  circumlocution,  please  give  us 
that,  and  I  will  try  the  circumlocution  in 
the  place  of  the  word.  IS'o  circumlocution 
will  serve  the  purpose  of  the  worthy  gen- 
tleman. When  the  Lord  commanded  the 
Aj)Ostles  to  baptize,  he  commanded  some- 
thing to  be  done.  I  care  not  what  he  com- 
manded to  be  done,  when  we  find  what  it 
was,  and  insert  it  in  English,  in  the  place 
of  the  Greek  word,  it  will  both  exhaust  the 
meaning  of  the  original  word  and  make 
sense.  If,  when  the  Lord  cominanded  the 
Apostles  to  baptize,  he  meant  to  sprinkle, 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  243 

it  will  not  only  make  sense,  but  give  his 
meaning^  to  insert  the  word  sprinhle.  But 
my  opponent  has  not  the  boldness  to  assert 
that  sprinkling  is  the  equivalent  for  hap- 
tizo ;  but  no  man  here  can  fail  to  see  that, 
when  the  Lord  commands  him  to  baptize, 
and  he  sprinkles,  professing  to  obey  that 
command,  he  makes  sprinkle  equivalent,  in 
the  fallest  and  most  literal  sense,  to  baptize. 
When  Mr.  M.  approached  my  argument 
from  the  agreement  of  the  lexicons,  that 
immerse  is  the  primary  meaning  of  haptizo^ 
he  forgot  that  he  had  consented  that  the 
same  word  used  in  reference  to  the  same 
thing,  must  have  the  same  meaning.  He 
overlooked  what  I  thought  I  had  stated 
with  great  clearness,  that  using  this  word 
invariably  when  the  Lord  gave  the  com- 
mand, he  could  not  have  used  it  in  a  sec- 
ondary sense.  He  overlooks  the  fact,  too, 
that  the  definitions  given  are  actions^  and 
when  we  are  consulting  lexicons,  it  is 
simply  a  question  about  what  action  was 
performed,  and  no  name  of  an  ordinance 
ever  comes  into  view.  But  he  immediately 
abandons  all  lexicons,  classics  and  authori- 
ties, and  demands  that  we  come  to  Bible 
usage.  And  j)ray  where  does  he  go,  in 
Bible  usage,  to  find  the  proper  name  of  the  or- 
dinance f  To  the  diverse  bajitisms,  the 
baptisms  of  cups,  etc.,  where  we  all  know 
there  is  nothing  under  the  sun  about  the 
ordinance !  Then  he  takes  a  flight,  in  a 
learned  disquisition  on  the   legal  and  the 


244  DEBATE   ON   THE 

oiioral  aspects  of  the  saving  plan  ;  but  wlio 
in  this  audience  could  see  what  bearing  it 
had  upon  the  question  in  debate.  He  was 
arriving  at  the  meaning  of  haj)tizo  by  a  cir- 
cumlocution ;  or,  properly,  evading  the 
meaning  of  haptizo  by  a  circumlocution. 
AYhat  light  was  there  in  the  last  half  hour 
of  his  speech?  JNo  man  living  could  tell 
any  more  what  the  Lord  meant,  when  he 
commanded  men  to  be  baptized,  from  all  he 
said.  Why  did  he  not  come  to  the  plain 
cases  of  the  JSTew  Testament  use  of  hajytizo 
introduced  by  me,  and  examine  them  ? 
Why  fly  off  in  a  circumlocution,  in  the 
place  of  a  plain  and  fair  issue  with  me  ?  I 
understand  the  gentleman,  and  know  who 
talks  to  fill  up  time.  His  harangue  about 
legal  and  moral  aspects  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, spun  out  and  delivered  probably  fifty 
times  before,  may  serve  to  make  the  people 
wonder  what  he  means,  or  to  fill  up  time, 
but  not  to  show  what  the  Lord  command- 
ed men  to  do,  when  he  commanded  them  to 
baptize.  Did  he  find  what  the  Lord  com- 
manded from  the  Jewish  purifications, 
some  of  them  authorized  in  the  law,  and 
some  not  ?  Did  any  person  in  this  assem- 
bly feel  like  he  was  pointing  out  the  duty 
of  any  soul  of  our  race.  What  example  of 
Jesus  did  he  give  us  ?  JSTot  one  ;  but  he  is 
back  among  the  ceremonies  of  the  Jews, 
making  distinctions  that  he  could  not  un- 
derstand yesterday,  between  the  common, 
or  ordinary,  influence  of  the  Sjpirit  and  ex- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  245 

traordinary  gifts.  What  liglit  he  shed 
forth  ! 

Having  now  disposed  of  the  gentleman's 
reply,  I  shall  proceed  with  my  affirmative 
argument,  commenced  in  my  opening 
speech.  When  my  time  expired,  I  had  just 
entered  upon  my  argument,  to  show  that 
bapiizo  does  not  mean  ordinance,  purify, 
moisten,  cleanse,  stain,  etc.,  etc.  This  ar- 
gument I  did  not  have  time  to  develop, 
only  so  far  as  to  show  that  it  does  not  mean 
ordinance.  This  I  did  by  showing  that  if 
the  word  means  ordinance,  it  can  never  oc- 
cur where  there  is  no  ordinance.  The 
word  baptizo  has  no  ordinance  in  it,  or  it 
could  not  have  been  used  thousands  of 
times  before  the  ordinance  existed,  and 
could  not  have  been  used  so  frequently  in 
the  iSTew  Testament,  where  all  admit  there 
is  no  allusion  to  the  ordinance,  as  the  bap- 
tism of  suffering,  baptism  of  fire,  baptism 
of  the  Spirit,  baptism  of  cups  and  divers 
baptisms.  BapAizo  is  not  the  original  word 
for  ordinance. 

That  baptizo  does  not  mean  moisten  is 
clear,  for  you  find  the  word  w^here  it  is  evi- 
dent there  is  no  moistening.  When  you 
read  of  persons  baptized  in  the  Sj^irit,  you 
do  not  think  of  moistening.  If  you  should 
read  that  a  man  was  baptized  in  fire,  you 
would  receive  the  idea  that  he  was  burned, 
not  because  baptize  means  burn.  You  re- 
ceive the  idea  of  burn  from  another  word — 
the  word  /i/-e.     If  you  read  that  a  man  was 


246  DEBATE   ON   THE 

baptized  in  ink,  you  receive  the  idea  that 
he  is  stained  ;  not  because  there  is  any  stain 
in  the  word  haptize ;  but  the  idea  of  stain 
comes  from  the  word  ink.  You  read  that  a 
man  is  baptized  in  water  ;  you  receive  the 
idea  that  he  is  wet,  or  moistened  ;  not  be- 
cause there  is  any  idea  of  wet  in  hajptize,  but 
the  idea  of  wet,  or  moistening,  comes  from 
the  word  water.  There  is  no  wash  in  hap- 
iizo,  else  a  man  would  be  washed  when  bap- 
tized in  the  Spirit,  or  in  fire.  But  when 
you  read  of  a  man  baptized  in  water,  you 
receive  the  idea  that  he  is  washed,  but  not 
because  there  is  any  such  idea  in  the  word 
haptize,  but  the  idea  comes  from  the  ele- 
ment he  is  said  to  be  baptized  in.  In  this 
case  wash  is  not  a  meaning  of  baptize,  but  a 
result  of  baptizing  in  water.  Baptize  the 
man  in  fire,  and  you  have  the  idea  that  he 
is  hnrned;  but  you  receive  it  not  from  the 
word  baptize,  but  from  the  word  fire.  Burn 
is  not  the  meaning  of  baptize,  but  a  reason- 
able and  natural  result  following  baptizing 
in  fire.  If  you  read  that  a  man  is  baptized 
in  filth,  5^ou  do  not  receive  the  idea  that  he 
is  cleansed,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  he 
has  contracted  filth  ;  not,  however,  because 
baptize  means  filth,  but  the  idea  of  filth  is 
found  in  other  words,  describing  the  ele- 
ment in  which  the  man  was  baptized,  or 
the  water.  The  contracting  of  filth  is  a  re- 
sult, or  an  effect,  i:»roduced  by  being  bap- 
tized in  a  certain  substance,  but  not  bap- 
tizing itself.     Cleansing  might,  in  the  same 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  247 

way,  be  a  result,  or  effect,  of  baptizing  in 
clean  water,  but  the  baptizing  and  cleans- 
ing, in  this  case,  are  precisely  as  different 
as  cause  and  effect. 

X.  My  tenth  argument  is  founded  upon- 
the  fact,  that  the  G-reeks  had  three  distinct 
words  for  the  three  different  acts,  immers- 
ing, pouring  and  sprinkling,  and  they 
never  used  one  of  these  words  for  the  other, 
in  the  place  of  the  other,  or  used  them  as 
equivalents.  They  no  more  used  these 
words  interchangably  than  we  do  the  Eng- 
lish words  sprinkle,  j)our  and  immerse. 
They  mean  three  distinct  acts,  and  are  all 
singularly  found  in  one  sentence,  in  the 
G-reek  Septuagint,  Lev.  xiv.  14-15.  The 
passage  reads  as  follows  in  the  common 
version,  and  the  three  words  are  translated 
pour^  dip  and  sprinJde  :  "And  the  priest  shall 
take  of  the  log  of  oil,  and  poin-  it  into  his 
left  hand  ;  and  the  priest  shall  dij)  his  right 
finger  in  the  oil  in  his  left  hand,  and  shall 
sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger  seven  times 
before  the  Lord."  Here,  in  one  sentence, 
we  have  6apto  translated  dijy,  cheo  translated 
pour,  and  7'aino  translated  sprinlde.  In  the 
J!^ew  Testament,  haptizo,  used  in  reference 
to  the  ordinance,  stands  entirely  distinct 
from  the  words  from  which  we  have  sprin- 
kle and  pour,,  in  every  place  where  they 
occur.  We  only  find  the  word  sprinkle 
seven  times  in  the  whole  JSTew  Testament, 
and  in  no  place  referring  to  the  ordinance. 
It  comes  from  rantizo  four  times,  from  pras- 


248  DEBATE   ON   THE  ^ 

k^isis  once,  and  from  rantismos  twice.  Ehheo 
occurs  eighteen  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  is  translated  pour  twelve  times, 
if  I  have  made  no  mistake  in  a  very  hasty 
examination.  As  before  observed,  haj^tizo 
is  invariably  used  to  express  literally  what 
the  Lord  commanded  to  be  done.  !N"ow, 
these  three  words  express  actions  as  differ- 
ent, in  every  place  where  they  are  found, 
as  our  English  words,  sprinkle^  pour  and 
immerse. 

I  maintain  that  if  the  Lord  had  intended 
that  sprinkling  or  pouring  should  have 
been  practiced,  he  had  the  j^recise  words  at 
command  that  meant  sprinkle  and  pour, 
and  would  most  unquestionably  have  used 
them,  instead  of  haptizo^  which  has  an  en- 
tirely different  meaning.  This  should  set- 
tle the  question  in  an  unsophisticated 
mind,  and,  I  think,  will  settle  the  question. 
If  the  Lord  had  intended  the  Apostles  to 
"  Go,  therefore,  and  disciple  all  nations, 
sprinkling  them  into  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  he  would  have  used  the  word  rantizo 
and  not  haptizo ;  but,  in  that  case,  he  cer- 
tainly would  not  have  said  "  sprinhling 
them  into  the  name,"  etc.,  but  "  sprinkle 
water  upon  tJiem^^'  as  expressed  in  the  Dis- 
cipline. The  Apostles  could,  as  Mr.  M. 
does,  then  have  practiced  as  commanded, 
by  sprinkling  water  upon  them,  but  how 
men  could  sprinlde  people  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,   and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  249 

Spirit,  is  difficult  to  conceive.  That  the 
Apostles  could  "  immerse  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  is  evident;  but  they  could 
not  sprinkle  them  "into  the  name,"  etc. 
Will  the  gentleman  attend  to  this  ?  Let 
him  examine  this,  and  he  will  find  enough 
to  do  without  his  circumlocution  ;  and  if  he 
must  employ  a  circumlocution,  I  hope  it 
will  not  be  such  an  ambiguous  one,  that  he 
himself  will  forget  the  object  of  it. 

XI.  My  eleventh  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  fact,  that  the  King  James'  trans- 
lators have  translated  haptizo,  dip,  in  the 
common  version.  In  the  G-reek  Septua- 
gint,  in  the  account  of  Kaman,  the  Assyrian 
leper,  dipping  himself  in  Jordan,  we  have 
haptizo.  Baptizo  is  translated  dip  here. 
The  translators  could  honestly  translate 
the  word  here,  because  they  were  not  con- 
cerned to  save  Xaman  from  dipping  him- 
self, even  though  it  was  seveii  times;  but 
when  they  come  down  to  precisely  the 
same  form  of  expression,  in  the  iSTew  Testa- 
ment, where  John  was  dipping  in  Jordan, 
they  preferred  the  "  circumlocution "  to 
the  translation,  and  gave  us  baptize,  merely 
transferred  and  not  translated.  They  did 
not  want  to  so  translate  the  word  as  "  to 
contradict  the  doctrine  of  our  church,"  or 
make  it  require  them  to  dij^  in  Jordan  or 
any  other  river.  Bapto  is  translated  dip 
in  three  places  in  the  common  version  of 
the  New  Testament.     In  the  words,  "  His 


250  DEBATE   ON  THE 

vesture  dipped  in  blood,"  Eev.  xix.  13* 
hapto  is  translated  dlpiyed.  In  the  words, 
"  shall  give  a  sop  when  I  have  dipped  it," 
John  xiii.  26,  hapto  is  translated  dipped. 
In  the  words,  "that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of 
his  finger,"  Lukexvi.  21,  Z>«p^o  is  translated 
dip.  In  the  words,  "  he  that  dij^peth  his 
hand  with  me,"  Matt.  xxvi.  23,  emhapto  is 
translated  dippetli;  Mark  xiv.  20,  and  John 
xiii.  26,  the  same  word  is  translated  dipped. 
]^o  one  has  any  doubt  what  Iranian  did 
when  he  dipped  himself  in  Jordan.  The 
same  form  of  expression  that  tells  what  he 
did,  in  the  original,  tells  ns  what  John 
did  when  he  bajDtized  in  Jordan.  The 
only  difference  is,  that  the  translators  trans- 
ferred in  one  place  and  translated  in  the 
other.  Translate  the  word  baptize  in  the 
history  of  the  baptism  of  Jesiis,  and  the 
others  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  no  man 
can  doubt  what  was  done.  He  dipped 
them  in  Jordan  as  Namon  dipped  himself, 
only  he  dijDped  himself  seven  times,  and 
they  were  dij^ped  but  once. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  SECOND  REPLY. 

Gkntlemen  Moderators  and  Respected  Hearers: 

I  did  not  allude  to  the  age  of  the  gentle- 
man out  of  any  disrespect ;  nor  did  I  do  it 
with  a  view  of  asking  any  symj^athy  or 
favor  on  that  score.  The  fact  that  he  is 
some  twenty  years  my  senior,  is  in  itself  a 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  251 

small  matter;  but  I  thought  it  looked  a 
little  strange  to  see  a  man  of  his  experience 
and  attainments,  complaining  that  I  had 
taken  advantage  of  him  in  settling  the  pre- 
liminaries for  a  discussion.  I  sought  no 
advantage,  and  desired  none.  After  ask- 
ing me  to  affirm  that  the  Methodist  Disci- 
pline is  better  than  the  IsTew  Testament, 
he  ought  to  be  a  little  modest  about 
referring  to  the  diiferent  forms  in  which 
the  questions  were  proposed.  When  he 
commenced  the  agitation  of  the  subject  by 
affirming  his  exclusive  practice,  and  chal- 
lenged controversy  in  regard  to  it,  I  could 
see  no  impropriety  in  holding  him  to  af- 
firm his  exclusive  proposition.  His  fre- 
quent allusions  to  my  "  utterly  refusing  " 
to  affirm  my  practice,  are  designed  to  cre- 
ate capital,  of  which  he  stands  in  need ; 
but,  though  I  dislike  such  expressions,  I 
must  say,  they  are  simply  ridiculous.  I 
cheerfully  submit  to  this  intelligent  audi- 
ence, the  question  as  to  which  of  us  sought 
to  '■'■tioist'^  the  word  "  only,"  in  our  propo- 
sition on  yesterday. 

I  was  amused  at  the  gentleman's  hurried 
attempts  to  gather  up  the  broken  frag- 
ments of  his  first  speech.  It  is  perhaps 
not  right  to  take  pleasure  in  his  tribula- 
tions, but  his  tone  was  so  confident  in  the 
midst  of  his  overwhelming  embarrassment, 
that  I  could  not  feel  that  degree  of  sympa- 
thy which  his  distress  might  otherwise  have 
excited.     He  is  determined  not  to  have 


252  DEBATE    ON   THE 

any  thing  to  do  with  such  hard  words  as 
generic  and  si^ecijic!  He  purposely  avoided 
them,  because  he  is  determined  to  be  un- 
derstood !  He  has  no  idea  of  taking  ad- 
vantage of  his  ignorant  congregation^  by  using 
"  these  words  which  are  so  convenient  for 
mystifying  !  "  He  finds  it  much  more  con- 
venient just  to  beg  the  question,  by  assum- 
ing that  hai^tizo  is  a  specific  term,  expres- 
sive of  a  specific  action^  than  to  enter  uj^on 
the  difficult  task  o^ proving  his  position,  by 
any  disquisition  on  the  nature  of  the  words 
employed  in  his  proj^osition.  He  is  so 
much  afraid  of  "mystification"  that  ho 
will  not  "undertake  to  prove  his  assump- 
tions, althuugh  his  cause  rests  upon  them  ! 
Eut  what  is  he  here  for  ?  Is  it  not  to 
prove  that  haptizo  is  a  specific  term — that 
it  expresses  a  specific  action,  and  nothing- 
else?  B-Ut  while  he  will  not  undertake  to 
prove  that  which  needs  proof,  and  which 
is  essential  to  the  support  of  his  proposi- 
tion, he  spends  considerable  time  in  prov- 
ing that  which  needs  no  proof,  and  Avhich 
can  be  of  no  service  to  him.  How  long  he 
labored  to  prove  that  haptizo  does  not  mean 
ordinance !  And  who  in  the  world  pretends 
that  it  does  mean  ordinance  ?  But  he  says 
it  means  an  action  or  something  to  be  done ! 
Certainly  it  does ;  for  it  is  a  verb,  and  all 
active  verbs  express  action ;  but  are  we  to 
understand  him  to  mean  just  what  he  said 
here?  Does  the  word  mean  action^  Is  this 
its  definition?     l^O]  that  was  not  his  mean- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  253 

ing.  He  just  repeated  his  first  argument, 
which  I  before  showed  begs  the  question. 
Every  turn  he  gives  it — every  time  lie  re- 
peats it,  lie  begs  the  question.  Were  he  to 
stand  up  here  and  repeat  it  two  thousand 
times,  it  would  just  be  the  same  thing — a 
begging  of  the  question,  by  assuming  that 
haptizo  is  a  specific  and  not  a  generic  word. 
Eecause  it  expresses  action,  he  takes  it  for 
granted  that  it  expresses  an  action  to  be 
performed  in  a  certain  way.  But  he  de- 
nies the  use  of  the  word  "  mode."  AYliy 
does  he  do  this  ?  Is  there  any  being  with- 
out a  mode  of  being?  Can  there  be  an  ac- 
tion without  a  mode  of  action  ?  Can  there 
be  any  fact  without  its  mode  ?  This  little 
dodge  of  Mr.  Campbell's  is  too  small  to 
cover  the  retreat  of  a  man  of  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's size.  Mr.  Carson — Mr.  Franklin's  fa- 
vorite critic — says  it  never  expresses  any 
thing  but  mode  !  Does  the  gentleman  de- 
ny that  Baptismos  is  the  name  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  ?  He  partly  does,  and  he 
partly  does  not!  He  admits  that  haptism  is 
an  ordinance,  and  that  the  command  to 
haptize  is  a  command  to  administer  the  or- 
dinance; but  then  to  admit  all  this  without 
some  effort  to  stay  the  mind  from  the  natu- 
ral conclusion,  would  not  do.  So  he  makes 
a  great  ado  over  the  fact  that  the  word 
does  not  mean  ordinance,  and  that  it  is  of- 
ten used  where  there  is  no  ordinance  ! 

His  second  argument  was  not  only  an- 
swered, but  turned  against  him.     He  char- 


254  DEBATE    ON   THE 

ges  me  with  ridiculing  immersion,  because 
I  stated  a  plain  fact  in  regard  to  the  abuse 
of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  which  was 
practised  by  the  church,  when  men  ceased 
to  follow  the  steady  light  of  Apostolic  prac- 
tice, and  began  to  follow,  not  their  own 
ideas  of  "  ease  and  convenience,"  but  the 
dictates  of  fanaticism.  His  idea  about  im- 
mersionism  gaining  in  proportion  to  the  in- 
crease of  light,  is  laughable  in  the  extreme. 
Does  he  deny  that  immersion  had  full  sway 
for  the  first  half  of  the  thousand  years 
called  the  dark  age,  and  that  the  revival  of 
"sprinkling"  was  about  parallel  with  the 
revival  of  letters?  His  i:)ious  airs  and  sol- 
emn exclamations  over  the  fact  that  I  ad- 
mit the  validity  of  immersion  for  baptism, 
and  yet  deny  that  the  Apostles  practiced  it, 
were  all  very  cheap  and  harmless.  It  may 
be  "shocking  "to  his  tender  sensibilities, 
but  if  he  can  not  understand  it,  I  am  satis- 
fied that  intelligent  hearers  will  see  no  dif- 
ficulty in  the  case.  He  says  I  did  not  meet 
his  fourth  argument,  but  I  am  satisfied 
that  if  there  was  any  thing  like  argument 
in  it,  I  did  meet  it  fully.  As  to  his  argu- 
ment from  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church, 
let  him  show  that  there  is  any  necessary 
connection  between  that  and  the  practice 
of  the  Apostles,  and  I  will  then  dignify  it 
with  the  name  of  argument.  He  depends 
altogether  on  the  sound  of  words — G-reek 
church !  Surely  the  Greek  church  ought 
to    understand    Greek !      How    profound ! 


ACTION  OP   BAPTISM.  255 

Does  he  not  know  that  the  schism  between 
the  Greek  and  Koman  churches  did  not  oc- 
cur until  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century?  And  does  he  not  know  that  there 
is  positively  no  connection  between  the 
modern  Greek  and  the  ancient  Greek  ? 

When  he  spoke  so  confidently  about  what 
was  written  in  the  first  two  centuries,  I 
did  not  wish  to  confine  him  to  "the  origi- 
nal manuscripts ;"  but  I  wanted  the  say- 
ing of  the  men  who  lived  at  that  period  as 
to  the  manner  of  baptizing ;  and  I  siill  want 
their  saying  in  an  authentic  form.  This  is 
all  I  demand,  and  nothing  short  of  this 
will  satisiy  the  inquiring.  The  opinion  of 
Mosheim,  or  any  other  writer  of  modern 
times,  will  not  answer  the  purpose.  Will 
the  gentleman  prove  his  assertion  ?  When 
he  says  the  original  words  for  "  pouring," 
"sprinkling,"  etc.,  are  never  used  in  Scrip- 
ture for  baptism,  and  that  the  original  for 
immerse  is  invariably  used  for  baptism, 
is  he  not  aware  that  he  assumes  the  point 
in  dispute — that  haptizo  invariably  means 
immerse?  Every  turn  he  makes  brings 
him  back  to  this  one  point.  He  can  not 
get  away  from  it.  Baptizo  means  immerse 
and  nothing  else  ;  it  does  not  mean  ordi- 
nance, it  means  immerse,  just  because  it 
does  not  mean  any  thing  else  !  But  when 
I  ask  him  to  prove  it,  he  cries  out,  "  mysti- 
fication !"  "  Mystery  Babylon  !"  Well, 
perhaps  his  friends  will  be  satisfied  1  About 
the  most  interesting  portion  of  his  speech 

18 


256  DEBATE   ON   THE 

was  his  Mormon  anecdote  ;  but  its  applica- 
tion was  faulty.  I  stated  a  fact  that  Mr. 
Franklin  can  not  dispute — that  some  Greek 
words  can  only  be  fully  expressed  in  Eng- 
lish by  a  "  circumlocution;"  but  instead  of 
admitting  or  denying,  he  got  up  an  anec- 
dote, and  at  once  began  playing  upon  the 
word  circumlocution.  To  come  right  doAvn 
to  an  examination  of  the  character  and 
meaning  of  the  words  about  which  we  dis- 
pute, would  be  too  much  like  "  mystifica- 
tion !"  He  is  afraid  his  audience  have  not 
sense  enough  to  understand  him  ! 

His  misapprehension  of  my  reply  to  his 
argument  from  the  agreement  of  lexicons, 
is  unaccountable.  I  showed  him  from  Ms 
oion  critics^  what  estimate  should  be  put  up- 
on the  authority  of  lexicons;  that  the  lexi- 
cons do  not  sustain  his  position,  because 
the^^rsi^  meaning  is  not  VaQ  2:}roper  meaning 
of  words  in  all  cases;  that  nothing  but  ex- 
amples from  a  language  can  be  ultimate 
proof  of  the  meaning  of  words,  etc.;  and 
then  he  charges  me  with  abandoning  all 
lexicons,  classics,  and  authorities  !  I  did 
appeal  to  the  language  of  the  Bible  as  the. 
only  standard — the  last  appeal ;  and  I  still 
appeal  to  it,  and  intend  to  prove  from  it 
that  Mr.  Pranklin  is  in  error,  deep,  gross, 
dangerous.  He  again,  in  this  connection, 
assumed  that  the  Lord  used  haptirM  in  its 
firat  sense;  what  docs  he  mean  by  this  ? 
Did  I  not  admit  that  he  used  it  in  its  prop- 
er sens^  ?     But  the  qut- stion  ie,  which  was 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  257 

its  proper  meaning  at  that  time?  ]\Ir. 
Franklin's  favorite  critic,  Carson,  tells  us 
that  words  often  enlarge  their  meaning  so 
as  to  Jose  sight  of  their  original  meaning, 
and  Mr.  F.  calls  his  criticism  the  ablest  he 
ever  saw.  Let  us  then  go  to  the  Bible  and 
see  what  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
was,  when  used  with  reference  to  the  re- 
ligious use  of  water.  Nothing  but  this  ap- 
peal will  satisfy  our  hearers.  He  says  I 
went  to  the  "  divers  baptisms  "  to  find  the 
proper  name  of  the  ordinance.  This  is  an- 
other mistake.  I  went  there  to  prove  that 
the  word  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  with 
reference  to  the  use  of  water  in  different 
wai/s,  and  that  it  relates  to  the  ceremo- 
nial ablutions,  some  of  which  were  positive- 
ly enjoined  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling, 
and  not  one  of  which  can  be  shown  to  have 
been  by  immersion — and  I  found  just  what 
I  went  there  for !  He  wants  to  know  why 
I  did  not  come  to  the  plain  cases  of  the 
New  Testament.  I  was  waiting  for  the 
gentleman  on  the  affirmative  to  lead  the 
way.  When  he  presents  the  plain  cases  of 
the  New  Testament,  I  will  be  along  with 
him  ;  and  if  he  does  not  present  them  soon, 
I  will  bo  ahead  of  him.  1  claim  the  privi- 
lege of  appealing  to  the  whole  use  of  the 
word  in  the  Scriptures,  for  the  purpose  of 
demonstrating  that  it  is  a  generic  term.  If 
the  word  is  a  generic  word,  and  if  it  is  used 
in  the  generic  sense  in  the  New  Testament, 
it  is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  reference  to 


258  DEBATE   ON   THE 

the  Christian  ordinance.  If  the  haptisms 
performed  by  the  Jews  upon  themselves, 
after  returning  from  market  were  not  im- 
mersions, how  will  the  gentleman  make  out 
exclusive  immersion  in  case  of  all  who 
were  baptized  in  the  Christian  sense  ?  If 
the  "  beds  "  were  not  immersed,  how  will 
he  satisfy  you  that  the  word  haptizo  always 
means  immerse,  and  nothing  else  ?  If  the 
*'  divers  baptisms  "  were  not  all  performed 
by  immersion,  the  gentleman  fails  to  prove 
his  proposition.  Then  let  him  not  be 
alarmed  at  my  appeal  to  the  "  divers  bap- 
tisms," but  keep  up  his  courage  and  ad- 
dress himself  to  his  task  with  all  earnest- 
ness and  fairness. 

I  knew  the  gentleman  would  not  like 
my  exposition  of  the  legal  and  moral  aspects 
of  the  Christian  system,  but  he  may  rest 
assured  of  the  fact  that  if  he  can  not  see 
the  bearing  of  my  "harangue "  on  the  ques- 
tion before  us,  others  can  and  will  ;  and 
what  is  more,  they  will  see  its  bearing  di- 
rectly against  the  gentleman  on  every 
proposition  we  are  to  debate.  How  wise 
he  appeared,  when,  finding  himself  at  a 
dead  stand,  he  exclaimed,  "  What  light  he 
shed  forth  !" 

Having  now  disposed  of  the  gentleman's 
review  of  my  speech,  I  will  follow  him  in 
his  further  "  expositions."  In  regard  to 
all  he  has  said  to  prove  that  haptizo  does 
not  mean  ordinance,  or  that  it  does  not  con- 
tain the  idea  of  cleansing  independently  of  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  259 

element  used,  I  shall  say  but  little,  as  it 
"would  not  helj)  him  prove  his  proposition, 
if  I  were  to  admit  it  all.  I  do  not,  how- 
ever, admit  it  all,  because  it  is  designed  to 
support  a  false  position  ;  namely,  that  the 
secondary  meaning  of  words  is  not  their 
proper  meaning.  In  direct  contradiction 
to  Mr.  Franklin,  Mr.  Carson  tells  us  that 
the  secondary  meaning  of  hapto  is  just  as 
proper  and  literal  as  the  first  meaning.  I 
know  we  would  get  the  idea  of  pollution,  if 
we  were  said  to  be  baptized  in  or  with  filth; 
and  that  we  would  get  the  idea  of  wetting, 
if  we  were  said  to  be  baptized  in  or  with 
water  ;  and  that  we  get  the  idea  of  burn- 
ing when  we  are  said  to  be  baptized  with 
fire  ;  but  what  of  all  this?  Does  it  prove 
that  inasmuch  as  the  word  was  commonly 
used  with  reference  to  purification  by  wa- 
ter, it  could  never  enlarge  its  meaning  so 
as  to  denote  the  purification  ?  If  Mr.  F. 
will  assert  this,  I  will  put  against  him  the 
authority  of  his  own  most  learned  critics  ; 
and  if  he  denies  it,  he  yields  all  he  intended 
to  gain  by  his  labored  argument.  I  will 
wait  patiently  for  him  to  take  his  position. 
I  have  seen  all  his  "  twistings  "  and  "  mys- 
tifications "  before,  and  feel  not  in  the  least 
alarmed. 

X.  The  fact  stated  as  the  basis  of  the 
gentleman's  tenth  argument,  is  indisputa- 
ble ;  but  the  use  he  makes  of  the  fact,  is  un- 
warrantable. The  G-reeks  certainly  had 
three  words  to  express  the  three  acts,  pour, 


2G0  DEBATE   ON   THE 

sprinkle,  immerse  ;  but  it  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  haptko  was  not  the  specific  word 
for  immerse ;  and,  consequently,  when 
the  early  Christians  first  be^-an  to 
speak  of  immersion  for  baptism,  tlie}^  ex- 
pressed it  by  another  word,  namely,  l.ata- 
duo.  Will  my  friend  deny  this  fact  ?  Did 
not  those  early  Christian  fathers  under- 
stand their  own  language  ?  His  labor  to 
prove  that  sprinkle  is  not  equivalent  to 
hapti?:o,  is  superfluous.  Sprinkle  is  S]Decific 
and  exj)resses  mode,  and  haptizo  is  generic, 
expressing  a  thing  to  be  done  that  may  be 
done  in  diiferent  ways.  The  passage  quo- 
ted containing  the  original  words  for  pour, 
dip,  and  sprinkle,  does  not  contain  hajjtizo 
at  all,  as  my  friend  would  have  you  be- 
lieve ;  but  it  contains  hapto,  which  is  trans- 
lated dip,  where  an  immersion  would  be 
out  of  the  question.  But  why  did  not  the 
Lord  rise  tiie  Avord  sprinkle  instead  of  ba2?- 
tizo  ?  Because  that  word  was  too  specific — 
too  limited  in  its  signification  to  embrace 
all  that  is  embraced  in  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  baptism.  A  more  general  term 
was  better  adapted  to  the  end  in  view. 
The  Lord  did  not  make  everything  turn 
on  the  mode  of  using  the  w^ater,  and 
then  deny  that  the  rite  has  Sny  mode,  as 
Mr.  Franklin  appears  to  do.  When  the 
gentleman  proves  the  correctness  of  his 
rule  for  translating  words,  by  substituting 
the  definition  of  a  word  in  the  place  of  the 
■word  to  be  translated,  I  will  attend  to  his 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  261 

examples  ;  and  when  lie  ^jroves  that  baptizo 
can  be  accurately  and  fully  translated  with- 
out any  circumlocution,  I  may  be  able  to 
see  some  sense  in  his  remarks  about  "am- 
biguous circumlocution."  I  hope,  by  the 
way,  that  he  will  not  flatter  himself  too 
much  with  the  idea  that  nobody  else  can 
see  the  bearing  or  object  of  my  remarks, 
because  he  can  not.  He  is  so  full  of  his 
"  one  idea"  about  immersion  that  he  can 
not  feel  the  force  of  an  argument  against 
him.  This  is  perfectly  natural.  It  is  a 
law  of  the  human  mind  that  w^hen  a  per- 
son long  keeps  his  attention  fixed  upon  any 
particular  view  of  a  subject,  he  loses  his 
power  of  seeing  that  subject  in  any  oth- 
er light.  This  is  the  inevitable  result  of 
"  riding  a  hobby." 

XI.  The  gentleman  makes  what  he  calls 
an  eleventh  argument.  It  is  founded  on 
the  fact  that  the  translators  have,  in  a  few 
instances,  translated  haptizo,  dip  ;  and  be- 
fore he  gets  his  argument  made,  he  insinu- 
ates that  these  same  translators  were  dis- 
honest men  !  And  what  is  remarkable  in 
the  case  is,  that  in  each  of  the  examples  he 
has  given  us  from  the  New  Testament, 
where  baptizo  is  rendered  dip,  baptize  is  not 
in  the  text  at  all !  And,  further,  where 
bapto  is  rendered  dip,  m  most  of  the  ex- 
amples, an  immersion  was  impossible  !  In 
the  expression,  "vesture  dipped — bebam- 
menon — in  blood  "  (Eev.  xix.  13),  the  allu- 
sion is  most  unquestionably  to  Isaiah  Ixiii. 


262  DEBATE   ON  THE 

1-3,  where  the  prophet,  in  describing  the 
very  same  scene,  uses  the  expression,  '■'■and 
their  blood  shall  be  SPRINKLED  UPON  my  gar- 
ment, and  Iioill  STAIN  all  my  raiment  /"  The 
idea  is  that  of  a  warrior  getting  his  gar- 
ment stained  in  battle  with  the  blood  of  his 
enemies.  Immersion  is  out  of  the  question 
here.  So  in  the  expression,  ''  give  a  sop 
when  I  have  dipped  it,"  the  idea  is  not  that 
of  immersion,  but  smearing.  So  in  Matt. 
xxvi.  23  :  "He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with 
me  in  the  dish,"  does  not  mean  immerse  his 
hand ;  for  it  was  not  customary  to  immerse 
the  hand  in  the  dish  from  which  they  were 
eating.  Bapto  is  the  word  from  wliich  bap- 
tizo  is  derived,  and  if  we  find  its  proper 
meaning,  it  will  aid  us  in  finding  the  prop- 
er meaning  of  baptlzo. 

The  gentleman  having  walked  out  boldly 
upon  the  position  of  Mr.  Carson,  and  so 
fully  endorsed  his  criticism  as  the  "  ablest 
he  ever  saw,"  shall  have  the  benefit  of  that 
learned  critic's  opinion  of  this  word.  Mr. 
Carson  saj^s  of  ba'pto  :  "  Now  while  I  con- 
tend that  dyeing  is  the  secondary  meaning 
of  this  word,  I  contend  also  that  this  is  'a 
real  literal  meaning^^  independent  of  conse- 
quence. Although  this  meaning  arose 
from  the  mode  of  dyeing  by  dipping,  yet 
the  word  has  come,  by  appropriation,  to 
denote  dyeing,  without  reference  to  modeT 
*  *  "  That  biipto  signities  to  dye  in  any 
manner^  is  a  truth  which,  instead  of  being 
against  us,  serves  to  solve  difficulties  that 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  263 

have  been  very  clumsily  got  over  by  some 
of  the  ablest  writers  on  this  side  of  the 
question."  *  *  "JSothing,  in  the  history 
of  words,  is  more  common  than  to  enlarge 
or  diminish  their  meaning.  Ideas  not  ori- 
ginally included  in  them  are  often  affixed 
to  some  words,  while  others  drop  ideas  ori- 
ginally asserted  in  their  application.  In 
this  way,  hapto^  from  signifying  mere  mode, 
came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain  operation 
usually  performed  in  that  mode.  From 
signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye 
by  dipping,  because  this  was  the  way  in 
which  things  were  usually  dyed.  And  af- 
terwards, from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it  came 
to  denote  dyeing  in  AiNY  manner.  A  like 
process  might  be  shown  in  the  history  of  a 
thousand  words."  Mr.  Carson  gives  this  as 
his  opinion  of  the  word  bapto,  and  he  sup- 
ports it  by  several  examples  frpm  the  class- 
ics, which  prove  that  Lapto  is  a  generic  term. 
Among  other  exaniples;  he  gives  the  follow- 
ing :  ''The  only  instance  in  which  I  have 
observed  the  word  hapto  in  this  significa- 
tion, in  the  works  of  Hippocrates,  he  em- 
ploys it  to  denote  dyeing  by  dropping  the 
dyemg  liquid  on  the  thing  dyed — 'When  it 
drops  upon  the  garments,  they  are  dycd.^ 
This,  surely,  is  not  dyeing  by  dipping." 
Then,  after  presenting  several  exam]jles 
from  other  writers,  proving  the  same  point, 
he  uses  this  language  :  "  These  examples 
are  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  word  hapto 
signifies  to  dye  in  general^  though  originally, 


264  DEBATE    ON    THE 

and  still  usually,  applied  to  dyeing  by  dip- 
ping. Having  such  evidence  before  ray 
eyes,  I  could  not  deny  this  t^  ray  oppo- 
nents, even  were  it  a  difficulty  as  to  the 
subject  of  the  mode  of  baptism."  I  will 
furnish  ray  friend  one  more  quotation  from 
his  favorite  critic,  and  reserve  others  of  a 
similar  character  for  another  speech. 
"Use,"  says  JSLv.  Carson,  "  is  always  supe- 
rior to  etj^mologj^,  as  a  witness  on  this  sub- 
ject. A  word  may  come  to  enlarge  its 
meanings,  so  as  to  lose  sight  of  its  origin. 
This  fact  must  be  obvious  to  every  smat- 
terer  in  jDhilology."  (For  all  these  quota- 
tions, see  Carson  on  the  Mode  of  iiaptism, 
chap,  ii,  section  vi.) 

Now  I  propose  to  "  walk  out  boldly " 
upon  so  much  of  Mr.  Carson's  position  as 
suits  mo.  I  find  the  following  points 
which  I  adopt  cheerfully :  1st,  That  dyeing 
is  a  real  literal  meaning  of  hapto,  inde- 
pendent of  consequence."  2nd,  "^optohas 
come,  by  appropriation,  to  denote  dyeing, 
without  ■reference  to  mode.''''  3rd,  "From  dye- 
ing by  dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in 
any  manner.''  4th,  The  examples  adduced 
by  the  learned  critic  "are  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  word  hapto  signifies  to  dye  in 
general.''  It  is,  therefore,  a  generic  term, 
5th,  "Nothing,  in  the  history  of  words,  is 
more  common  than  to  enlarge  or  diminish 
their  meaning."  6th,  "A  word  may  come 
to  enlarge  its  meanings  so  as  to  lose  sight  of 
its  origin." 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM,  265 

Will  Mr.  Franklin  "walk  out  boldly" 
upon  tliese  ^propositions,  so  clearly  present- 
eil  1)}^  his  distinguished  friend,  Mr.  Carson  ? 
I  apprehend  he  will  not!  JSiit  whether  he 
wili  or  not  he  can  not,  escape.  I  intend 
to  furnish  examples  from  the  Scriptures, 
which  prove  that  the  word  is  used  where 
immersion  is  not  implied.  I  refer  to  Le- 
viticus xiv.  2-7  :  "  This  shall  he  the  law  of 
the  leper  in  the  day  of  his  cleansing:  He 
shall  he  brought  unto  the  priest :  and  the 
priest  sha'l  go  forth  out  of  the  camp  ;  and 
the  priest  shall  look,  and,  behold,  if  the 
plague  of  leprosy  be  healed  in  the  leper; 
then  shall  the  priest  command  to  take  for 
him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  two  birds  alive 
and  clean,  and  cedar  wood,  and  scarlet,  and 
hyssop:  and  the  2)riest  shall  command  that 
one  of  the  birds  be  killed  in  an  earthen 
vessel  over  running  water :  as  for  the  liv- 
ing bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar 
Avood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hysBoj),  and 
shall  dip  them  and  the  living  bird  in  the 
blood  of  the  bird  that  w^as  killed  over  the 
running  water  :  and  he  shall  sprinkle  upon 
him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy 
seven  times,  and  shall  pronounce  him  clean, 
and  shall  let  the  living  bird  loose  into  the 
open  field."  In  this  passage,  hapsei  can 
not  be  understood  of  dipping  all  over,  or 
in  the  sense  of  immersion;  lor  the  living 
bird,  the  cedar  wood,  the  scarlet,  and  the 
hyssop,  could  not  all  be  immersed  in  the 
blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed.     But  my 


266  DEBATE   ON   THE 

friend's  learned  critic  says  the  blood  of  the 
slain  bird  was  received  in  a  vessel  of  run- 
ning water,  in  which  mixture  the  things 
were  to  be  dipped!  But  the  "mixture"  is 
all  in  the  ideas  of  the  critic.  The  bird  was 
to  be  slain  in  a  vessel  over  running  icater  ; 
but  how  the  water  could  bem  the  vessel,  and 
yet  be  ^'■running  tua^er,"  is  something  which 
neither  Mr.  Carson  nor  Mr.  Franklin  can 
tell.  Another  thing  may  be  remarked  here, 
that  however  foolish  and  absurd  it  may  ap- 
pear to  my  friend,  the  ceremonial  cleansing 
was  to  be  effected  by  "sprinkling." 

To  the  same  effect  is  Daniel  iv.  33  :  "  The 
same  hour  was  the  thing  fulfilled  upon 
Nebuchadnezzar;  and  he  was  driven  from 
men,  and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body 
was  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  till  his  hairs 
were  grown  like  eagles' feathers,  and  his  nails 
like  birds'  c  aws."  The  word  loet  is  from 
hapto,  and  bears  the  general  sense  of  mois- 
ten, but  does  not  and  can  not  admit  the  idea 
of  a  dipping  or  an  immersion.  No  learn- 
ing, no  ingenuity,  no  quibbling  nor  twist- 
ing can  extort  from  hapto  the  meaning  of 
immersion  in  this  place.  The  Baptist  critr 
ics  have  spent  a  vast  amount  of  labor  and. 
learning  on  this  passage;  but  there  it  stands, 
an  everlasting  contradiction  to  their  asser- 
tions that  hapto  is  a  specific  word,  meaning 
nothing  but  mode.  Before  Mr.'  Franklin 
attempts  to  reply  to  this,  he  would  do  well 
to  remember  the  contradictory  positions 
his  own   critics   have   taken,   in  order  to 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  267- 

escape  the  difficulty  that  stares  them  in  the 
face. 

In  regard  to  the  example  found  in  II. 
Kings,  V.  10-14,  where  Eiisha  commanded 
Naaman  to  wash  (lousai)  in  Jordan,  and  the 
latter  complied  by  dipping  himself,  (ehapti- 
sato,)  I  remark:  1st,  There  is  no  evidence 
that  l!^aaman  did  immerse  himself;  2nd, 
Whatever  he  did,  was  in  obedience  to  the 
command  to  wash  himself;  from  which  it 
appears  that  haptizo  here  takes  the  force 
and  meaning  of  louo,  which  is  unquestiona- 
bly a  generic  term. 

I  have  now  answered  the  gentleman's 
''arguments,"  laid  the  foundation  for  my 
own  theory,  and  presented  him  some  clear 
proof  of  the  fact  that  baptizo,  derived  from 
bapto,  is  a  generic  term,  and,  not  wishing 
to  anticipate  him  too  much,  I  will  just  fill 
up  my  time  bj^  presenting  an  objection  or 
two  to  his  exclusive  notions. 

1.  Immersion  is  not  specifically  command- 
ed. This  is  clear  and  unquestionable.  If  bap- 
tizo  does  not  necessarily  mean  immerse,  (and 
we  have  seen  that  it  does  not),  then  immer- 
sion is  not  commanded  as  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism. My  friend  can  not  frame  a  sentence 
so  as  to  assert  that  it  is,  without  assuming 
the  point  in  dispute,  and  thereby  begging 
the  question.  If  he  thinks  otherwise,  let 
him  make  the  attempt. 

2.  Immersion  is  not  necessary  to  meet  the 
design  of  baptism,  or  to  complete  its  signi- 
fication.   Baptism  is  designed  to  represent 


268  DEBATE   ON   THE 

the  moral  cleansing  of  the  soul,  by  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  the  moral  cleans- 
ing is  fally  represented  by  the  sprinkling  of 
water.  ISTo  inspired  writer  represents  the 
sanctification  of  the  soul,  by  immersion,  but 
invariably  by  sprinkling.  God  says:  "I 
will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean."  'No  such  moral  cleans- 
ing is  represented  by  immersion. 

3.  Immersion  is  not  uniTcrsally  practica- 
ble. The  gospel  was  intended  for  all  the 
world — for  every  creature.  But  not  less  than 
eight  millions  of  human  beings  inhabit  the 
polar  regions,  where  immersion  is  imprac- 
ticable for  a  large  portion  of  the  year.  In 
some  of  those  countries,  brandy  and  mer- 
cury freeze  during  winter.  How  could  im- 
mersion be  practiced  there?  Where  could 
water  be  obtained?  Who  could  endure  the 
process?  I  would  advise  my  friend  to  make 
a  missionary  tour  to  those  regions  where 
the  inhabitants  crowd  together  in  huts,  and 
stop  the  openings  of  their  houses  Avith  ice  ; 
where  they  procure  water  for  necessary 
uses  by  melting  snow  and  ice,  and  where 
the  cup  freezes  to  the  lip  if  it  be  touched  in 
drinking :  let  him  go  there  and  test  the 
practicability  of  exclusive  immersion  !  My 
friend  may  affect  to  make  light  of  this  ob- 
jection, but  he  can  not  answer  it.  I  present 
it  in  a  definite  form.  Either  God  has  en- 
joined a  duty  to  be  perpetually  and  uni- 
versally binding,  which,  for  a  large  poi^tion 
of  every  year,  ia  impracticable  far  laiilions 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  269 

of  the  race,  or  else  he  has  not  enjoined  im- 
mersion, as  the  exclusive  form  of  baptism. 

In  case  of  sickness,  every  one  knows  that 
immersion  is  often  burdensome  and  danger- 
ous, if  not  entirely  out  of  the  question. 
But  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  bur- 
densome. It  comes  to  the  inhabitants  of 
every  clime,  and  to  people  of  every  class, 
and  in  every  condition,  with  all  its  conso- 
lations, in  perfect  adaptation  to  every  pos- 
sible situation  in  life.  Eut  exclusive  im- 
mersionism  is  evidently  another  sj'stem. 
Its  want  of  universal  adaptation  is  too  plain 
to  require  proof;  and  that  it  is,  in  numerous 
instances,  entirely  impraciicable,  is  an  un- 
questionable fact. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  THIRD  SPEECH. 

Gentlemej*  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  am  compelled  t,o  admit  the  adroitness  of 
the  worthy  gentleman,  in  seeming  to  allude 
to  my  age,  professedly  in  refly  to  what  I 
had  said  about  his  having  the  advantage, 
in  his  negative  position.  It  was  not  his 
shrewdness  that  gave  him  the  advantage  of 
a  negative  position,  when  he  is  really  in  the 
affirmative,  but  his  cowardice;  which  dis- 
posed him  to  refuse  to  debate  at  all,  or  have 
the  negative.  I  was  compelled  to  debate, 
by  affirming  a  negative,  not  because  he  was 
so  sharp  as  to  get  the  advantage,  but  be- 
cau9r5  he  was  so  great  a  coward-  that  I  had 


270  DEBATE   ON   THE 

to  give  him  the  advantage  or  have  no  de- 
bate. "With  all  his  timorousne3S,  howev- 
er, I  did  not  think  of  him  being  a  mere 
boy,  as  his  calculation  makes  him,  only 
twenty-six  years  old !  I  did  not  think, 
though  some  of  his  arguments,  I  admit,  are 
weak  enough  for  one  even  younger,  that  he 
had  an  apology,  in  his  favor,  of  his  being 
twenty  years  my  junior  !  I  do  not  know  how 
to  meet  this  excuse  for  his  failure  to  answer 
my  argument,  unless  the  maturity  of  my 
argument  has  made  him  think  me  vastly 
older  than  I  am.  Though  he  lifts  his  hand 
to  heaven,  and  says,  "I  baptize,"  etc.,  and 
does  this  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  when  he 
only  sprinkles^  he  was  no  more  "  green 
enough,"  young  as  he  is,  to  undertake  to 
prove,  that  sprinkling  is  baptism,  than 
that  the  mourner's  bench  is  divinely  au- 
thorized, or  his  Discipline  better  than  the 
New  Testament.  He  is  old  enough,  young 
as  he  is,  to  know  well  not  lit)  try  to  prove  ail 
he  practices. 

I  have  said  nothing  about  an  "ignorant 
congregation."  I  rely  upon  the  intelligence 
of  the  congregation  to  understand  me.  I 
know  the  people  do  understand  me  and  that 
they  do  not  understand  Mr.  M.  The  rea- 
son is  not  that  they  are  not  intelligent;  but 
the  reason  is  that  much  that  he  has  said 
had  no  bearing  upon  the  subject,  or  is  not 
inte  ligibie.  He  is  not  trying  to  prove  any 
thing,  establish  any  thing  or  enlighten  any 
person.     What  has  he  said,  throwing  any 


ACTION   or   BAPTISM.  271 

light  upon  baptism?  Has  lie  produced  any 
example  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  for  bap- 
tism ?  ]N"ot  one.  Has  he  produced  any 
command  for  sprinkling  or  pouring  ?  Not 
one,  nor  any  thing  like  it.  What  has  he 
done?  He  informs  you  that  haptizo  is  not 
a  specific  but  a  generic  term,  and  then,  that 
we  have  no  word  into  which  it  can  be  trans- 
lated, or  that  we  have  no  word  that  exhausts 
its  meaning !  that  it  cannot  be  translated 
only  "  by  a  circumlocution."  I  invited  him, 
then,  to  translate  it  "  by  a  circumlocution ;" 
but,  like  the  man,  when  asked  to  give  the 
sign  of  Jonah,  he  could  not  give  even  that. 
But  if  it  only  means  the  name  of  an  ordi- 
nance, why  talk  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word?  You  might  as  well  go  to  the  word 
officer^  to  find  what  a  man  did  in  perform- 
ing the  duties  of  an  office.  Among  all  the 
definitions  of  haptizo  we  do  not  find  any 
one  of  them  to  be  "the  name  of  an  ordi- 
nance," nor  do  we  ever  find  it  translated, 
"  the  proper  name  of  an  ordinance,"  not 
even  by  "  a  circumlocution."  This  mean- 
ing of  this  wonderful  word,  haptizo,  is  much 
younger  than  himself,  and  not  near  so  well 
matured  in  proportion  to  its  age.  It  has 
in  its  favor  merely  the  unsupported  asser- 
tion of  Rev.  S.  M.  Merrill.  Ko  other  au- 
thority, I  presume,  on  earth. 

I  am  not  contending  that  baptism  ex- 
presses "an  action  to  be  performed  in  a 
certain  tea?/,"  but  it  expresses  a  certain  action 
that  must  he  perlormecL     That  action  is  im- 

19 


272  DEBATE  ON   THE 

merse,  and  I  am  not  particular  wliicli  way 
it  is  done,  so  that  the  action  is  performed. 
Immerse  is  the  action^  no  matter,  except  as  a 
mere  question  of  propriety,  whether  back 
or  face  foremost,  right  or  left  side  foremostj 
but  it  is  not  the  action  at  all,  when  you 
sprinkle  or  pour.  But  the  gentleman  is  now 
fully  committed.  I  say,  "  Baptize  means 
an  action,  or  something  to  be  done."  To 
which,  he  says,  "Certainly  it  does."  It 
does  not,  then,  mean  three  actions,  the  ac- 
tions of  sprinkling,  pouring  and  immersing. 
I  say,  "It  means  a  thing  done."  Mr.  M. 
says,  "  Certainly  it  does."  It  does  not,  then, 
mean  three  things  done.  He  who  sprinkles, 
does  one  thing.  He  does  not  pour  or  im- 
merse, but  sprinkles.  He  who  pours,  does 
one  thing.  He  does  not  immerse  or  sprin- 
kle, but  pours.  He  who  immerses  does  one 
thing.  He  does  not  sprinkle  or  pour.  In 
my  practice,  I  do  one  thing;  I  immerse. 
Mr.  M.  does  three  things ;  he  sprinkles, 
pours,  and  immerses.  Sprinkling,  pouring 
and  immersing  are  not  one  thing,  but  three, 
as  any  man  in  this  assembly  can  see  as 
clearly  as  that  two  and  two  make  four,  l^o 
mystification  can  covt-r  this  up,  nor  hide  it 
from  this  intelligent  assembly. 

Mr.  M.  asks,  if  I  "  deny  that  immersion 
had  fall  sway  for  the  first  half  of  the  thou- 
sand years  called  tlie  dark  ages."  JSTo,  I  do 
not;  and  from  the  identical  same  authority 
where  he  and  myself  learn  this,  we  both 
learn  that  immersion  had  full  sway  over 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  273 

the  remaining  three  centuries  as  we  travel 
back  to  the  beginning.  He  finds  plenty  of 
authority  to  show  the  prevalence  of  immer- 
sion in  the  first  half  of  the  thousand  years 
of  the  dark  ages,  not  seeming  conscious 
that  the  same  authority  declares  the  preva- 
lence of  immersion  back  to  the  beginning. 
The  same  authority  is  good  with  him  while 
he  is  looking  one  "w^y,  but  no  authority  at 
all  when  his  eye  is  turned  another  way. 
But  the  fact  stares  him,  and  all  who  stand 
where  he  does,  in  the  face,  that  before  the 
dark  ages  had  terminated,  they  had  well  nigh 
done  away  immersion,  and  made  sprinkling 
almost  universal.  Indeed,  when  he  admits 
that  immersion  prevailed  through  the  first 
half  of  the  dark  ages,  he  admits  my  argu- 
ment, that  the  latter  half  of  the  dark  ages 
run  it  out,  and  made  sprinkling  prevail. 
And  since  the  light  of  reformation  has  again 
broke  out,  sprinkling  is  receding  and  im- 
mersion gaining.  This  argument  stands  in 
full  force  against  him. 

The  worthy  gentleman  now  does  not 
call  for  the  inanuacri-pt  written  in  the  first 
ages,  but  the  saying  of  the  men,  alluded  to 
so  confidently  my  me.  I  do  not,  if  I  under- 
stand what  he  alludes  to,  allude  to  the  say- 
ing oit\\Q  writers  of  the  first  two  centuries, 
but  to  what  they  did  not  say.  They  did 
not  say  any  thing  about  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing fur  baptism.  This  is  what  I  confident- 
ly assert.  If  he  questions  it,  let  him  j)i'0- 
duce  one  word  of  the  kind,  written  in  the 
specified  period. 


274  DEBATE    ON    THE 

AYhMt  reason  has  Mr.  M.  given  for  telling 
the  audience  that  I  am  afraid  they  have  not 
sense  enough  to  understand  me?  Certain- 
ly he  has  no  foundation  in  the  Avorld  for 
saying  such  a  thing.  I  never  found  any 
difficulty  in  making  an  audience  understand 
me.  I  have  not  a  fear  but  this  audience 
will  understand  me. 

He  says  he  has  shown,  from  my  own 
critics,  that  the  first  meaning  is  not  the 
p?-op<?r  meaning  of  words  in  all  cases.  All 
he  has  shown,  in  this  respect,  amounts  to 
precisely  nothing.  We  are  in  discussion 
about  one  word  ;  and  simply  to  find  its 
meaning  in  reference  to  one  thing.  Its 
primary  meaning,  beyond  all  doubt,  is 
immerse.  This  he  has  not  denied.  Let 
him  deny  this,  and  there  will  be  time 
enough  for  starting  general  propositions 
about  words.  Immerse  is  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  word  invariably  used  to 
exj)ress  literally  what  ;vas  to  be  done.  Let 
h-im  deny  this,  and  then  we  will  hear  his 
general  principles.  He  did  not  go  to  the 
Jewish  baptisms  to  learn  the  meaning  of 
baj)fismos,  but  to  find  that  the  word  is  used 
in  the  Scriptures  with  reference  to  the  use 
of  water  in  different  ways.  Indeed  !  And 
this  learning,  from  Jewish  ceremonies,  is  all 
to  enlighten  us,  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
on  tlie  meaning  of  the  comuiand  to  be  bap- 
tized !  No  wonder  that  one  man  in  his 
church  has  water  sprinkled  upon  him ; 
another  has  it  poured  upon  him  ;  another 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  276 

is  immersed  ;  anotl^er  kneels  down  in  the 
water  and  has  water  poured  upon  him. 
Any  person  can  see  that  he  has  no  system. 
The  preacher  has  no  way,  can  Bhow  no 
way,  and  has  nothing  tangible  in  any  form 
in  his  church.  ]\Ir.  M.  has  attempted  to 
establish  nothing,  to  maintain  nothing,  but 
simply  to  interjDOse  difficulties.  Xo  won- 
der he  can  not  satisfy  his  own  members. 
He  thinks  I  will  satisfy  my  own  brethren. 
I  have  no  doubt  they  are  all  well  satis :ied 
now,  for  he  has  admitted  that  their  baptism 
is  valid.  But  I  doubt  exceedingly  whether 
he  will  satisfy  his  brethren.  From  the 
restlessness  I  see  among  them,  I  doubt  ex- 
ceedingly whether  he  will  satisfy  them. 
Why  does  he  not  come  to  some  plain  case 
in  the  ^ew  Testament,  and  show  his  au- 
thority for  sprinkling?  For  the  simple 
reason,  that  he  can  find  none. 

I  have  no  objection  to  his  "expounding" 
upon  legal  and  moral  aspects,  till  dooms 
day,  only  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  debate.  It  proves  nothing,  only  that 
he  had  "no  argument. 

I  should  like  to  know  if  my  friend  thinks 
hataduo  means  invariably  immerse.  Does 
he  think  the  Lord  should  have  used  tliat 
word  if  he  meant  immei-sef  Donnegan 
does  not  give  immerse  as  a  definition  of 
hataduo  at  all.  He  defines  it  "  to  dip  under ; 
sink — properly,  to  cause  the  sinking  of. 
ISeut.  to  plunge;  go  down;  penetrate 
deejDly,  enter  privately  ;  to  go  into  or  min- 


276  DEBATE   ON   THE 

gle  in."  You  can  see,  at,  once,  that  this  was 
not  the  word  for  immerse.  Mr.  M.  did  not 
even  venture  to  assert  that  this  was  the 
Greek  word  for  immerse,  but  adroitly  for 
one  so  1/oung,  who  asks  if  I  do  not  know  that 
when  the  early  Christians  began  to  speak 
of  immersion  for  baptism,  they  used  the 
word  kataduo.  I  should  like  to  see  the 
history  that  shows  where  they  first  began 
to  speak  of  immersion  for  baptism  in  the 
early  ages.  I  would  not  hesitate  to  offer 
him  a  premium  for  a  history  of  that  sort, 
especially  where  they  used  kataduo  to  ex- 
press the  action.  I  did  not  think  he  was 
so  young^  or  so  green,  as  to  swallow  this 
down  from  Mr.  Hice,  without  confessing 
his  indebtedness  to  him.  My  fact,  that 
the  Greeks  had  their  three  words  for  sprin- 
kle, ^  pour  and  immerse,  is  granted,  and 
haptizo  was  the  word  for  immerse. 

Having  now  given  as  much  attention  to 
the  worthy  gentleman's  speech  as  I  deem 
necessary,  I  shall  j^roceed  with  my  regular 
argument.  I  am  anxious  to  keep  plenty  of 
matter  before  him  to  think  about.  In  or- 
der to  this  end,  I  shall  try  and  accommo- 
date him,  in  giving  him  Bible  argument. 
Although  he  has  given  so  little  attention 
to  the  clear  Bible  argument  already  before 
him,  I  shall  proceed  to  lay  other  important 
considerations  before  him, 

XII.  My  twelfth  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  expressions  "they  went  down 
into    the    water,"    "came    up   out   of  the 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  277 

water,"  and  were  baptized  in  water.  The 
first  expression  I  shall  invite  his  attention 
to,  is  found  Matt.  iii.  16 :  "  And  Jesus, 
when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water."  I  wish  his  special 
attention  to  the  words  ''  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  loater.^'  They  had  been  in 
the  water,  or  they  could  not  have  went 
up  out  of  tlie  loater^  "We  read  again,  in  the 
same  chapter,  verses  five  and  six:  "Then 
went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."  Here  it  is  said,  they  "  were 
baptized  by  him  in  Jordan."  Again,  we 
read,  "And  there  went  out  unto  him  all 
the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem, 
and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of 
Jordan  ;"  Mark  i.  5.  Here  it  is  said,  they 
were  "  baptized  in  the  river  of  Jordan." 
The  original  word  po*amo?j  here  translated 
river,  is  translated  both  xoaters  and  floods,  in 
other  passages,  so  that  it  is  virtually  said, 
"  they  were  baptized  in  the  waters  or  floods  of 
Jordan."  Still  once  more,  we  read,  "  And 
they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized 
him  ;  and  when  they  were  come  up  out  of 
the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught 
away  Philip;"  Acts  viii.  38-39.  Again, 
we  read,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those 
days,  that  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of 
Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jor- 
dan ;"  Mark  i.  9.     What  think  you  of  all 


278  DEBATE   ON   THE 

this  ?  They  went  doion  into  the  ■water,  were 
baptized  in  tlie  river,  waters  or  floods  of 
Jordan,  and  come  up  out  of  the  water,  and 
Jesus  was  baptized  in  Jordan.  Can  any 
man,  with  these  expressions  before  him, 
have  any  doubt  how  they  baptized  in  the 
time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles?  Not  one 
particle.  They  did  not  go  down  into  the 
water  to  sprinkle,  nor  did  they  come  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water,  when  they 
had  been  sprinkled,  nor  were  the  people 
sprinkled  of  John  in  the  river  of  Jordan  ; 
nor  does  anybody  here,  not  excepting  Mr. 
jVE.  himself,  think  that  Jesus  was  sprinkled 
of  John  in  Jordan.  Such  an  idea  would  be 
preposterous  and  ridiculous  in  the  extreme. 
But  I  can  not  let  the  King  James'  trans- 
lators pass  without  a  little  stricture  here. 
The  manner  in  which  they  bave  translated 
the  G-reek  preposition  en,  exposes  them  in 
the  eyes  of  all  fair  and  honest  thinking 
men.  They  commence  with  Matthew  first, 
and  translate  en  seventeen  times  m,  once 
within,  and  once  among.  Here  they  come 
to  baptizing  en  (in)  water.  They  saw  that  to 
translate  it  as  they  had  just  done,  virtually, 
nineteen  times,  in,  thus  clearly  saying,  in 
80  many  words,  "  bax^tized  in  water,''  would 
favor  immersion.  They  immediately  whip 
round  and  translate  it  with,  thus  making  it 
read  "  baptized  ivith  water.''  As  soon  as 
they  succeed  in  getting  it  in  nine  times  in 
succession,  and  then  give  us,  unnecessarily, 
with  once,  and  then,  twenty-nine  times   in 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  279 

succession,  in,  and  continue  at  about  the 
same  rate  through  the  ISTew  Testament. 
They  have,  however,  in  this,  only  iDJured 
themselves  with  all  discerning  men,  for 
they  have  shown  a  want  of  integrity.  They 
could  not  say  "  baptized  with  Jordan," 
*'  baptized  loith  the  wilderness  "  nor  "  ivUh 
Enon."  This  was  too  preposterous  even  in 
their  own  estimation.  licmember,  then, 
that  they  went  down  into  the  water,  baptized 
{?i  the  water,  in  Jordan,  and  came  u^)  out  of 
the  water ^Siiid  then  ask  yourselves  the  ques- 
tion, honestly,  if  you  think  they  sprinkled, 
or  poured  or  did  any  thing  but  immersed. 
Jesus  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan,  and 
came  up  straightway  out  of  the  water.  How 
was  he  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan  ?  Was 
he  sprinkled  of  John  in  Jordan  ?  HoV 
could  John  have  sprinkled  a  person  ?  espe- 
cially how  could  he  have  sprinkled  him  in 
a  river  ?  Can  Mr.  M.  tell  ?  He  never  can. 
XIII.  My  thirteenth  argument  is  found- 
ed on  baptizing  at  a  certain  place  because 
there  was  much  water  there.  The  Scrip- 
ture says,  "  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in 
Enon,  near  Salim,  because  there  Avas  much 
water  there ;"  John  iii.  23.  What  reason  is 
here  assigned  for  baptizing  in  this  place? 
"  Because  there  was  mucJb  water  there.''  Did 
John  sprinkle  in  Enon,  because  there  was 
much  water  there?  This  would  be  a  singu- 
lar reason?  Xo ;  he  did  not  sprinkle  there 
because  there  was  much  water  there,  but 
immersed  in  Enon  because  there  was  much 


280  DEBATE   ON   THE 

water  there.  Let  the  worthy  gentleman 
meet  this.  We  are  now  in  the  Bible,  the 
old  family  Bible  that  lay  on  the  stand — the 
King  James'  version.  Will  he  meet  me 
here  and  try  the  strength  of  the  Bible  ar- 
gument ?  I  will  certainly  be  with  him,  if 
he  will.  The  more  closely  and  carefully  he 
examines  the  subject,  the  better.  I  wish 
him  to  tell  us  distinctly  what  he  thinks  of 
the  reason  given  in  the  word  of  Grod  for 
baptizing  in  Enon  near  Salim.  That  rea- 
son, as  assigned  in  the  word  of  God,  is  ^'■he- 
cause  there  loas  much  water  there.^'  Did  any 
man,  or  could  any  man,  ever  assign  such  a 
reason  for  sprinkling  and  pouring  in  Enon? 
Surely  not. 

This  passage  has  been  tortured  in  various 
ways  by  those  who  are  trying  to  evade  im- 
mersion. I  have  heard  some  take  the  posi- 
tion that  Enon  was  a  town,  and,  conse-" 
quently,  that  it  contained  nothing  in  favor 
of  immersion.  Others,  in  trying  to  evade 
the  clear  force  of  the  passage,  say  that  the 
original,  translated  "much  water,"  there 
should  be  rendered  "  many  waters."  Others, 
again,  say  that  the  "much  water"  was  for 
their  beasts;  but  I  leave  my  worthy  friend 
to  make  his  election  among  these  evasions, 
or  to  adopt  some  other  expedient,  as  he 
may  see  fit.  This  mucli  I  will  vouch  for  : 
that  he  will  never  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  this  argument. 

HiY.  My  fourteenth  argument  is  found- 
ed upon  the  expressions,  "buried  by  bap- 


ACTION    OP    BAPTISM.  281 

tism,"  arKT"  buried  in  baptism."  I  will 
read  the  passages  including  these  expres- 
sions :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  Grod,  who  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead ;"  Coll.  ii.  12. 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection  ;"  Eomans  vi.  3-5.  Here 
we  find  two  terms  to  which  we  invite  your 
most  candid  and  respectful  attention.  One 
of  these  is  "buried,"  and  the  other  is 
"  planted."  Nor  do  we  wish  you  to  look 
at  these  terms  in  their  isolated  form,  but  in 
their  true  contextual  import.  You  are  not 
to  fix  your  eye  simply  upon  the  fact  that 
they  were  buried^  but  notice  that  they  were 
"buried  with  him.'"  They  were  buried  luith 
Christ.  How  were  they  buried  with  him  ? 
"Buried  with  him  %  baptism,"  or  by  the 
action  of  baptism.  "Buried  with  him  in 
baptism,"  or  in  the  action  of  baptism.  How 
was  this  done?  Not  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring  certainly.  There  never  was  such 
a  thing  as  buried  with  him  by  sprinkling 
or  pouring.  There  never  can  be  such  a 
thing  as  being  buried  with  him  in  sprink- 


282  DEBATE   ON   THE 

ling'  or  pouring.     Such  a  tiling  is,  in  itself, 
a  natural  and  ]Dliysical  impossibility. 

But  there  are  several  things  to  be  noticed 
in  these  passages :  1st,  They  were  in  tlie 
likeness  of  the  burial  of  Jesus.  2nd,  They 
■were,  at  the  same  time,  in  tlie  likeness  of 
his  death.  3rd,  They  were  in  the  likeness 
of  bis  resurrection.  In  the  process  of  im- 
mersion there  is — 1st,  A  burial  like  the 
Lord  was  buried.  2nd,  When  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  burial,  they  are  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death.  3rd,  There  is  a  likeness  of 
his  resurrection,  and  rising  up  from  im- 
mersion. But  in  sprinkling  there  is  no 
likeness  of  the  burial  of  Jesus,  no  likeness 
of  his  death,  and  no  likeness  of  his 
resurrection.  Nothing  can  be  more  ob- 
vious than  this  to  the  most  casual  observ- 
er. The  whole  church  at  CoUosse  were 
buried  in  baj^tism,  and  the  whole  church  at 
Kome  were  buried  by  baptism,  and  Paul 
refers  to  it  as  a  well-known  and  establish- 
ed matter.  They  had  all  been  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death — had  4II  been 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  and  had  all 
been  raised  from  this  burial,  like  as  Christ 
had  been  raised  from  the  dead.  They  were 
then,  unquestionably,  all  immersed.  If, 
then,  the  whole  membership  at  both  Rome 
and  Collosse  were  immersed,  what  ground 
has  any  man  to  doubt  that  all  were  im- 
mersed ?  Can  any  man  allow  himself  to 
tiiink  that  they  immersed  in  one  place, 
sprinkled  in  another   and   poured   in    au- 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  283 

other?  Such  a  supposition  is  out  of  the 
question.  Had  there  been  two  or  three 
ways  of  baptizing,  some  reference  would 
have  been  made  to  it  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  we  all  know  is  not  the  case.  JSToth- 
ing  can  be  farther  from  all  reason  and  con- 
sistency than  to  suppose  that  they  practiced 
in  diiferent  ways,  but  that  no  one  mention- 
ed it  in  all  the  writings  of  the  JN'ew  Testa- 
ment, or  any  other  writing  of  the  first  two 
centuries,  or  even  alluded  to  it  in  any  shape 
or  form.  They  practiced,  unquestionably, 
in  but  one  way  for  centuries,  and  that  one 
way  was  burying  in  baptism,  or  immers- 
ing, from  which  the}''  rose  to  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life.  From  this  the  worthy  gentle- 
man Avill  never  escape,  with  all  his  legal  and 
moral  aspects  of  the  subject,  his  outward 
symbol  of  inward  grace,  types  and  anti- 
types. 


MR.  MERRILL'S   TUIRD    REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  Respected  Hearers: 

I  have  committed  a  grave  offence!  In 
my  last  speech,  I  made  a  remark  which 
implied  a  random  guess  at  the  age  of  my 
op))onent,  and  missed  it  just  six  years  !  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  stand  corrected, 
but  I  protest  against  the  gentleman's 
method  of  accounting  for  the  mistake.  I 
did  ??o^  judge  hiui  older  than  he  is,  because 
of  the  great  ^visdom  he  has   displayed;    no. 


284  DEBATE    ON   THE 

not  by  any  means  1  It  is  well  known  that 
trouble  and  sorrow,  especial-y  when  it 
amounts  to  mental  agony,  will  effect  the 
appearance  of  a  person,  causing  bim  to 
seem  older  than  he  is.  I  looked  at  the  gen- 
tleman in  his  distress,  and  judged  entirely 
by  his  appearance.  But  he  is  determined 
to  have  a  little  capital  out  of  the  corres- 
j)ondence.  For  my  part,  I  am  satisfied 
with  that,  and  have  no  occasion  to  refer  to 
it,  except  in  rej^ly  to  him.  He  insists  that 
he  was  obliged  to  affirm  the  proposition 
before  us,  or  have  no  debate!  He  has 
again  and  again  charged  that  I  refused  to 
affirm  and  defend  my  practice.  jSTow,  in 
full  view  of  all  that  has  passed  between  us, 
I  deliberately  deny  the  charge,  and  demand  of 
him  to  prove  it,  or  to  retract  ichat  he  has  said 
on  this  point.  I  did  insist  that  the  affirma- 
tive belonged  to  him,  which  was  correct, 
but  so  far  as  refusing  to  debate  on  any 
other  terms  is  concerned,  /  never  did.  He 
has  said  so  much  about  this  matter  now, 
that  it  is  time  to  bring  it  to  a  close.  He  is 
therefore  to  prove  what  he  has  said,  or  to 
take  it  hack.  As  to  his  charge  of  "  cow- 
ardice," I  wonder  not  that  the  people 
smiled  when  he  made  it.  He  is  old  enough 
to  know  that  it  is  wrong  to  make  such 
unfounded  and  preposterous  assertions,  in 
the  presence  of  his  Maker,  and  before  a 
cono-reif-ation  assembled  to  hear  the  truth. 
The  gentleman  seems  to  question  the 
fact  that  baptismos  is  the  name  of  an    ordi- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  285 

nance  !  Has  he  courage  to  deny  it  boldly  ? 
Who  talked  about  translating  it  the  name  of 
an  ordinance?  I  did  not.  Eut  is  it  not  a 
name  ?  The  translation  of  a  name  is  a  dif- 
ferent thing.  John  was  the  name  of  the 
Baptist;  but  who  would  think  about  trans- 
lating the  word  John,  "  the  name  of  the 
Baptist?"  This  is  one  of  his  mature  argu- 
ments !  The  gentleman  is  so  accustomed 
to  begging  the  question,  that  he  does  it 
without  appearing  to  know  it.  Hence  his 
assertion  that  haptizo  does  not  express  an 
action  to  be  performed  in  a  certai7i  way^  but 
an  action  that  must  be  ^^ei'formed ;  that 
action  is  immerse,  etc.  This  is  just  what 
he  is  to  prove.  He  says  the  same  authori- 
ties that  teach  the  prevalence  of  immersion 
duriug  the  first  half  of  the  dark  ages,  teach 
the  same  thing  in  regard  to  the  first  two 
centuries  !  Why  did  he  not  just  give  the 
authority  on  this  point?  Let  him  show 
from  any  writer  of  that  period  that  immer- 
sion is  mentioned  for  baptism,  if  he  can. 
That  will  amount  to  something.  But  he 
alludes  not  to  what  those  writers  did  say, 
but  to  what  they  did  not  say  !  That  is  very 
convenient;  but  then  he  afiirms  that  one 
practice  did  prevail,  and  that  another  prac- 
tice did  not  prevail,  at  that  time  ;  and  he 
calls  upon  me  to  show  where  it  is  said 
sprinkling  did  prevail,  but  refuses  to  show 
where  it  is  said  immersion  did  prevail !  I 
know  he  depends  on  what  they  did  not  say ; 
but  when  he  makes  a   positive   assertion, 


286  DEBATE    ON    THE 

based  on  the  autbority  of  the  writers  of  a 
given  period,  lie  must  let  us  know  what 
they  did  say. 

The  gentleman  denies  the  authority  of 
his  own  favorite  critic — the  one,  too,  on 
whose  position  ho  was  going  to  walk  out 
so  boldly  !  But  I  can  not  let  him  off  so 
easily  at  this  point.  I  did  show,  from  Mr. 
Carson,  that  the  ■proper  meaning  of  words 
is  not  alwa3's  their  prmar^  meaning.  This 
is  too  plain  and  important  to  be  passed 
over  so  slightly  b}""  my  friend.  I  knew  he 
would  like  to  dodge  it  if  he  could,  but  I 
intend  that  he  shall  look  it  in  the  face. 
Bapto  is  the  Avord  from  which  haptizo  is 
derived.  I  have  shown,  both  by  the  au- 
thority of  my  friend's  learned  critic,  and 
the  Bible  use,  that  it  is  a  generic  term  ;  and, 
therefore,  that  it  is  not  restricted  in  its 
meaning  to  a  specific  action,  as  Mr.  F.  pre- 
tends. He  may  make  as  many  exclama- 
tions, and  put  on  as  much  surprise,  and 
look  as  wise  as  he  finds  it  convenient,  over 
the  use  of  the  word  with  reference  to  Jew- 
ish ceremonies,  but  the  facts  stand  out  be- 
fore him.  He  has  a  peculiar  tact  for  put- 
ting on  airs,  when  he  meets  a  point  he 
can  not  answer,  and  expects  no  doubt  to 
keep  up  the  spirits  of  his  friends  by  his 
antic  freaks  ;  but  I  intend  to  make  both 
himself  and  them  feel  the  necessity  of  argu- 
ment, instead  of  assertion  and  exclamation. 
Hear,  then,  my  friend's  favorite  critic,  Mr. 
Carson. 


ACTION   OF    BAPl'ISM.  287 

After  charging  sonie  of  the  Baptist  critics 
with  straining  matters,  and  employing 
false  criticism,  in  trying  to  prove  that 
when  hapto  relates  to  dyeing,  it  is  always 
dyeing  by  dipping,  he  says  :  "  The  obser- 
vations of  Dr.  Gale  on  this  subject  fall  in 
some  degree  under  the  above  censure. 
'The  Grecians,'  says  he,  'very  frequently 
apply  the  word  in  all  its  various  forms  to 
the  dyer's  art,  sometimes  perhaps  not  very 
properly,  but  always  so  as  to  imply  and 
refer  only  to  its  true  natural  signification 
to  dip.^  What  does  this  learned  writer 
mean  when  he  expresses  a  doubt  of  the 
propriety  of  this  usage?  Does  he  mean 
that  such  an  extension  of  the  meaning  of 
words  is  in  some  degree  a  trespass  against 
the  laws  of  language?  But  such  a  usage 
is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
language  ;  and  the  history  of  a  thousand 
words  sanctions  this  example.  Language 
has  no  logical  truth  for  its  standard  ;  and 
therefore  against  this  it  can  not  trespass. 
Use  is   the   sole   arbiter  of  language  ; 

AND  whatever  IS  AGREEABLE  TO  THIS 
AUTHORITY,  STANDS  JUSTIFIED  BEYOND  IM- 
PEACHMENT. Candlestick  is  as  properly 
applied  to  gold  as  to  timber  ;  hapto  signifies 
to  dye  hy  sprinkling^  as  properly  as  by  dip- 
ping, though  originally  it  was  confined  to 
the  latter. 

"  Nor  is  he  well  founded  when  he  asserts 
that  the  word  in  such  applications  always 
implies  and  refeis  to  its  primary  significa- 

20 


288  DEBATE   ON   THE 

tion  only.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  pro- 
duced some  examples,  and  he  himself  has 
produced  others,  in  which  candor  can  not' 
say  that  there  is  any  such  implication  or 
reference.  From  such  examples  it  could 
not  be  known  even  that  hapto  has  the 
meaning  of  dip.  They  relate  to  dyeing 
wliolly  without  reference  to  dipping ;  nay, 
some  of  them  without  an  expressed  reference 
to  another  mode.  This  is  a  fact,  and  were  it 
even  against  me,  I  could  not   but  admit  it. 

"JS'or  are  such  applications  of  the  word  to 
be  accounted  for  by  metaphor,  as  Dr.  Grale 
asserts.  They  are  as  literal  as  a  primary 
meaning.  It  is  by  extension  of  literal 
meaning,  and  not  by  figure  of  any  kind, 
that  words  come  to  depart  so  far  from  their 
original  signification.  The  examples  of 
this  kind  which  Dr.  Gale  produces,  can  not 
be  accounted  for  by  his  philosophy.  '  Mag- 
nes,  an  old  comic  poet  of  Athens,  used  the 
Lydian  music,  shaved  his  face  and  smeared 
it  over  with  tawny  ashes.'  ]S'ow,  surely 
haptomenos  here  has  no  reference  to  its  pri- 
mary meaning.  Nor  is  it  used  figuratively. 
The  face  of  the  person  was  rubbed  with 
the  ashes.  Bj^^  any  thing  implied  or  refer- 
red to  in  this  example,  it  could  not  be 
known  that  hapto  ever  signifies  to  dip.''^ 

So  much  for  Mr.  Carson's  candor.  His 
learning  and  intelligence  recoil  at  the 
"clumsy"  method  of  getting  over  difficul- 
ties, adopted  by  his  brethren;  and  while 
he  sees  their  "  straining  "  and  false  criti- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  289 

cism,  with  their  manifest  failures,  he  makes 
a  vigorous  effort  to  redeem  the  cause  ;  but 
without  success.  He  proves  that  hapto  is 
generic^  though  in  terms  he  denies  it.  I 
take  what  lie  proves,  and  let  his  assertions 
go.  Further  examples  of  the  word  in  Bi- 
ble use  will  be  given  in  proper  time.  Will 
my  friend  look  at  these  already  advanced  ? 
It  is  easy  to  say  they  amount  to  nothing. 

Does  he  deny  that  the  early  Christians 
used  hataduo  to  express  the  baptisms  that 
were  performed  by  immersion  ?  Will  he 
pretend  to  say  it  does  not  mean  immerse  ? 
If  not,  what  does  his  allusion  to  it  amount 
to?  Why  quote  Donnegan,  who  makes  it 
more  specific  than  haptizo  ?  Is  he  not  hard 
]3ressed  ?  Does  he  dispute  the  examples 
given  by  Mr.  Eice?  Then  why  allude  to 
him?  But  the  gentleman  has  finally  got 
to  the  Bible,  and  I  hasten  to  stand  by  his 
side. 

XII.  His  twelfth  argument  is  founded 
not  upon  the  meaning,  but  upon  the  sound 
of  certain  words  and  phrases.  "  They  went 
down  into  the  water,"  "came  up  out  of  the 
water,"  and  were  baptized  in  ivater,  are  all 
expressions  which,  when  brought  to  the 
test  of  enlightened  criticism,  affurd  not  the 
slightest  foundation  for  my  friend's  exclu- 
sive notions.  It  is  true  that  the  custom  of 
modern  immersionists,  of  repairing  to  riv- 
ers, streams,  and  ponds  of  one  kind  and  an- 
other, for  the  purpose  of  immersing,  has 
fixed,  in  the  minds  .of  the  people  of  this  gen- 


290  DEBATE   ON   THE 

eration,  a  certain  habit  of  associating  the 
idea  of  immersion  with  the  phraseology 
employed  in  the  passages  read  to  yon;  and 
Mr.  F.  evidently  relies  more  npon  this  hab- 
it  of  association,  than  upon  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  Scriptures.  His  first  exani2:)le  is 
the  baptism  of  our  Savior.  He  asserts,  with 
all  confidence,  that  nobody  questioned  that 
the  Savior  Avas  immersed.  He  goes  further, 
and  insinuates  that  any  one  who  doubts  his 
asssertion  must  be  dishonest !  ISTow,  I  claim 
to  be  an  honest  man,  and  I  do  honestly  doubt 
that  Jesus  was  immersed.  I  find  not  the 
least  proof  in  the  Eible  that  he  was  immersed, 
and  I  find  something  pointing  to  a  difi'erent 
mode.  His  baptism  was  for  the  fulfillment 
of  "all  righteousness;"  evidently  alluding 
to  the  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  Bitual ; 
and  now,  before  we  proceed  any  farther 
with  this  case,  I  ask  the  gentleman  on  the 
affirmative,  to  show  us  the  requirement  of 
the  Mosaic  Eitual  or  Levitical  law,  that  was 
or  could  be  fulfilled  by  immersion.  Will 
he  do  it?  If  not,  he  must  forever  fail  of 
making  any  thing  out  of  this  case.  In  re- 
gard to  the  multitudes  that  went  out  to  be 
baptized  of  John  in  Jordan,  I  remark  that 
all  the  evidence  of  their  immersion  is  found 
in  the  simple  fact  that  they  were  baptized 
in  the  river  ;  but  is  he  willing  to  assert  that 
they  could  not  be  baptized  in  any  other  form 
or  way,  in  the  river?  If  not,  he  has  not 
so  much  as  attemj)ted  proof  The  place  of 
their  baptism  is  not  in  question.     It  is  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  291 

manner  of  baptizing  that  we  are  debating. 
Is  it  certain  these  vast  multitudes  were  all 
immersed  by  John?  Is  it  prohahle?  Is  it 
possible?  So  far  from  proving  the  certainty, 
or  the  probability  of  this,  I  doubt  whether 
Mr.  F.  can  prove  the  possibility  of  it.  If 
he  thinks  he  can,  let  him  try  it. 

The  case  of  Philip  and  the  Ethiopian  is 
his  next  example.  This  is  so  important, 
and  such  a  great  favorite,  and  my  friend  is 
80  very  fond  of  increasing  the  list  of  his  so 
called  arguments,  that  I  wonder  he  did 
not  present  it  under  a  distinct  head,  duly 
labeled,  and  numbered  as  a  distinct  argu  • 
nient.  But  notwithstanding  this  omission, 
we  must  look  at  it  candidly  and  fairly.  The 
question  is,  was  the  eunuch  immersed  ?  My 
friend  says  he  was.  I  doubt  it,  and  de- 
mand the  proof.  Where  is  the  evidence  ? 
It  is  not  in  the  word  haptizo ;  it  is  not  in 
the  preposition  eis,  here  translated  into  ;  it 
is  not  in  the  preposition  e^',  here  translated 
out  of;  where  then  is  it?  I  deny  that  there 
was  water  enough  in  the  place  to  immerse 
the  man  in ;  and  I  deny  that  there  is  any 
proof  that  they  entered  the  water  at  all. 
Now  I  call  upon  Mr.  Franklin  to  show  that 
there  was  a  sufficient  quantity  of  water 
there  in  the  desert,  and  that  eis  necessarily 
implies  an  entrance  into  the  water.  Here 
is  straight  forward  work  for  him. 

The  bold  assertion  of  my  friend,  that  the 
translators  of  the  Bible  were  dishonest 
men,  just  because  they  did  not  render  the 


292  DEBATE    ON    THE 

preposition  e?i,  to  suit  the  exclusive  notions 
be  has  seen  fit  to  adopt,  was  one  of  the 
most  uncalled  for,  daring,  and  presumptu- 
ous flings,  at  men  of  approved  character, 
moral  worth,  and  eminent  learning,  that  I 
have  ever  heard.  What  spirit  prompted 
him  to  this?  Does  he  not,  by  this  course, 
proclaim  his  own  defeat  and  shame  ?  Sure- 
ly he  feels  himself  hard  pressed.  But  an- 
other thing :  Why  does  he  play  so  much 
upon  the  word  sprinkle?  Is  it  to  create  a 
laugh,  to  excite  prejudice,  or  to  exhibit 
truth?  I  leave  you  to  judge.  I  have  now 
noticed  this  twelfth  argument  sufficient  to 
point  out  its  defects,  and  to  indicate  the 
course  Mr.  F.  must  take  to  sustain  it,  and 
for  the  present  I  leave  it,  with  the  under- 
standing that  I  shall  canvass  thoroughly 
his  efforts  to  make  out  a  case  of  immersion 
from  any  of  the  examples  here  presented. 
Let  him  lead  the  w^ay  boldly,  or  I  shall  have 
to  multiply  difficulties  on  his  hands.  He 
must  give  us  more  than  repetitions  of  the 
j)hrases  down  into  the  water,  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter, etc.;  for  were  he  to  lift  his  voice  even 
loader  than  ever  before,  in  repeating  and 
emphasizing  these  words,  he  would  make 
nothing  out  of  them  by  that  means.  He 
must  look  at  the  facts  themselves,  and  ga- 
ther liixht  from  all  the  circumstances  sur- 
rounding  them. 

XIII.  His  thirteenth  argument  is  found- 
ed on  baptizi;ig  at  a  certain  place,  because 
there  was  much  water  there.     He  refers  to 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  293 

Enon  near  to  Salim.  Well,  what  was  Enon  ? 
\Yas  it  a  river?  IS'o,  not  a  river ;  but  what 
was  it?  He  did  not  find  it  convenient  to 
tell.  He  anticipated  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties in  his  way,  called  them  evasions,  look- 
ed at  them  with  much  apparent  wisdom  amd 
confidence  ;  and  then  turned  away  without 
putting  forth  a  hand  to  remove  a  single  one 
of  them.  Does  he  indeed  deny  that  the 
original,  translated  "much  water,"  means 
"many  waters?"  Dare  he  deny  it?  We 
shall  see.  Does  he  deny  that  "  much  wa- 
ter" was  needed  for  the  multitudes  attend- 
ing upon  John's  ministry,  apart  from  the 
simple  consideration  of  the  amount  required 
for  baptism?  Perhaps  he  may!  But  he 
emphasizes  the  words,  "^e  haptizedin  Enon 
because  there  was  much  water  there."  Now 
look  at  this.  The  distinguishing  feature  of 
John's  ofiice  and  work,  was  his  practice  of 
baptizing ;  henc«,  in  speaking  of  his  exer- 
cising his  ministry  in  a  particular  place, 
the  sacred  writers  say  he  baptized  in  a  cer- 
tain place;  but  they  did  not,  by  this  lan- 
guage, exclude  the  idea  of  his  preaching, 
exhorting,  etc.,  in  that  place.  When  it  is 
said  he  baptized  in  a  certain  place,  the  gen- 
eral fact  is  denoted  that  he  made  that  place 
his  stand  for  preaehing,  exhorting,  baptiz- 
ing, and  doing  all  the  work  that  pertained 
to  his  office.  In  selecting  a  stand  for  the 
exercise  of  his  ministry,  he  would  alwayg 
have  respect  to  the  wants,  comforts,  and 
conveniences  of  the  vast    multitudes  who 


294  DEBATE   ON   THE 

flocked  around  bira.  He  must  therefore 
find  a  place  where  water  could  be  obtained 
for  man, and  beast,  whether  he  baptized  by 
immersion  or  not.  Hence,  the  simple  fact 
that  he  baptized  in  a  given  locality,  because 
there  was  much  water — polla  hudata — ''ma- 
ny waters"  there,  is  no  proof  whatever  of 
his  manner  of  administering  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  ISTow,  I  submit  that  whether 
this  is  "  satisfactory  "  to  Mr.  F.  or  not,  it  is 
a  Mifficient  reply  to  all  he  has  yet  said  upon 
this  point.  And  just  here  I  will  insist  up- 
on a  fact  which  Mr.  Rice  urged  upon  the 
attention  of  his  opponent,  without  obtain- 
ing any  satisfactory  answer.  It  is  this  : 
There  is  no  instance  upon  record,  of  the 
Aj)ostles  ever  going  a  step  out  of  their  way 
to  obtain  water  for  the  administration  of 
this  ordinance.  Whether  they  were  in  the 
city,  in  the  wilderness,  by  the  river,  or  up- 
on the  public  high-way,  when  they  found  a 
proper  subject  for  baptism,  they  adminis- 
tered the  ordinance  without  going  a  step 
out  of  their  way  in  search  of  water.  How. 
could  this  fact  exist,  if  immersion  was  the 
invariable  mode? 

XIY.  His  fourteenth  argument  is  found- 
ed on  the  expressions,  "  Buried  by  bap- 
tism," and  "buried  inbaj^tism."  (Rom.vi. 
3-5 ;  Col.  ii.  12.)  These  expressions,  how- 
ever, are  not  so  different  as  to  make  any 
thing  for  the  notions  of  my  friend.  He  in- 
vites attention  to  the  terms  "  buried  "  and 
"planted;"  and  if  he  had    read    another 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  295 

verse  he  would  have  had  another  term, 
namely,  "crucified."  These  three  terms 
are  very  nearly  related — they  point  to  the 
same  effect — the  same  experience  ;  but  they 
do  not  allude  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  All 
the  support  my  friend's  theory  obtains 
from  these  Scriptures,  is  forced  from  the 
sound  of  the  words,  associated  with  the 
modern  style  of  burial.  And  this  is  the 
grand  argument — the  stronghold  of  the  ex- 
clusive system.  I  am  glad  Mr.  F.  has 
brought  it  forward  in  good  time,  and  with 
such  great  confidence.  I  shall  have  the 
pleasure  of  rescuing  these  Scriptures  from 
the  miserable  perversions  to  which  they 
have  been  subjected.  I  solicit  your  most 
careful  attention. 

The  basis  of  the  gentleman's  argument  is 
the  manner  of  burying  the  dead.  He 
makes  light  of  the  idea  of  burying  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  ;  but  did  he  ever  know 
one  to  be  buried  by  dipping  in  the  earth  ? 
This  is  all  too  small  for  a  grave  divine,  as 
my  opponent  should  be,  to  indulge  in.  It 
must  be  evident  to  all  that  he  confounds 
tlie  "  burial "  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures 
cited,  with  the  "  baptism."  This  is  an  er- 
ror into  which  immersionists  generally  fall. 
The  baptism  is  one  thing,  and  the  burial  is 
another.  Let  this  be  borne  in  mind.  Bap- 
tism is  not  a  burial ;  it  is  not  called  a 
burial ;  neither  does  it  imply  a  burial. 
The  relation  between  the  baptism  and  the 
burial  is  a  point   to   which   I   invite    Mr. 


296  DEBATE    ON   THE 

Franklin's  particular  attention.  "Buried 
hjj  baptism."  That  which  is  done  by  bap- 
tism is  not  baptism  in  itself.  "We  are 
buried  with  him."  Not  merely  loas  once  for 
a  moment  buried,  as  in  the  act  of  immersion; 
but  ice  are  buried.  It  is  something  that  is 
done  by  baptism,  and  remains  after  bap- 
tism. A  man  can  not  cease  to  be  buried 
with  Christ,  without  losing  his  interest  in 
the  death  of  Christ.  Again  :  In  what  are 
we  buried?  In  the  water?  It  is  not  said 
so  in  the  Bible.  Into  what  are  we  buried  ? 
Into  the  water?  ISTo;  but  into  death.  Into 
luliat  death  ?  That  depends  on  the  charac- 
ter of  the  burial.  If  the  burial  is  literal, 
the  death  is  literal ;  but  if  the  burial  is 
mystical,  the  death  is  of  the  same  charac- 
ter. To  bury  a  person  in  the  water  literally 
into  death,  is  to  drown  him.  It  can  mean 
nothing  else !  But  if  the  death  is  not 
literal,  the  burial  is  not  literal ;  and  if  the 
burial  is  not  literal,  the  baptism  need  not 
be  by  immersion.  If  baptism  is  the  burial, 
the  rising  from  the  burial  is  rising  from 
baptism ;  and  if  rising  from  burial  is  be- 
coming unburied,  rising  from  baptism  is 
becoming  unbaptized.  But  there  is  no 
rising  from  burial,  no  rising  from  baptism, 
no  rising  from  water,  nor  any  thing  of  the 
kind,  intimated  in  the  passage.  My  friend 
mistakes  the  points  of  comparison  alto- 
gether. The  comparison  is  not,  as  he  as- 
sumes, between  the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  our  Lord,  and  the  burial  and  resurrec- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  297 

tion  literally  effected  in  the  act  of  baptism. 
Mark  this  point  well.  The  comparison  is 
between  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  on  one  hand,  and  the  mystical 
death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  believers, 
on  the  other  hand.  This  mystical  death, 
burial  and  resurrection  is  effected  by  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  is,  there- 
fore, properly  represented  by  baptism, 
which,  as  before  explained  (in  my  opening 
speech),  relates  only  to  the  oflSlce  of  the 
Spirit.  By  an  easy  figure,  that  is  said  to 
be  done  by  baptism,  which  is  really  done 
by  the  Spirit  which  baptism  represents. 
Hence  the  language  is  plain,  and  none  need 
be  misled.  We  are  buried  by  baptism  into 
death — not  death  literally  or  spiritually, 
but  as  the  preceding  verse  declares,  into  the 
death  of  Christ.  We  are  covered,  in  being 
buried,  with  that  into  wdiich  we  are  buried, 
and  we  are  buried  into  that  with  which  we 
are  covered  ;  hence,  we  are  buried  into,  and 
covered  with,  not  the  literal  element  in  or 
with  which  we  are  baptized,  but  the  death 
of  Christ.  The  burial  is  thus  distinct  from 
the  baptism.  It  is  a  mystic  burial,  as  it  is 
a  mystic  "  planting,"  and  a  mystic  "  cruci- 
fixion," mentioned  in  the  same  passage.  I 
am  not  talking  about  a  mystic  baptism  ; 
that  is  not  the  point ;  but  that  which  bap- 
tism is  said  to  cff'ect — the  death,  burial  and 
crucifixion — is  mystical.  As  Christ  was 
crucified  literally,  we  are  crucified  with 
him;  as  he  died  literally,  we  die  with  him; 


298  DEBATE   ON    THE 

and  as  he  was  buried  literally,  so  we  are 
buried  with  him — not  literally,  but  mystic- 
ally. We  die  to  sin,  we  are  buried  into  his 
death  and  we  walk  in  newness  of  life.  All 
this  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  symbolized 
by  baptism,  and,  by  an  easy  figure,  attrib- 
uted to  baptism.  Hence,  in  all  the  passage, 
there  is  no  allusion  to  immersion.  The 
mode  of  baptism  was  foreign  to  the 
Apostle's  design. 

I  object  to  Sir.  Franklin's  interpretation  : 
1st,  That  it  makes  part  of  the  terms  literal, 
and  part  figurative,  in  the  same  passage. 
2nd,  It  confounds  the  burial  and  baptism, 
which  are  evidently  distinct.  3rd,  It  makes 
that  a  past  and  momentary  action,  which 
the  Apostle  rejDresents  as  a  continuous  ef- 
fect. 4th,  It  mistakes  the  points  of  com- 
parison throughout  the  passage.  5th,  It 
confounds  the  sacraments  by  putting  bap- 
tism where  the  Scriptures  always  put  the 
supper  of  our  Lord.  This  last  point  I 
would  impress  upon  your  minds  more  fully. 
Baptism  never  relates  to  the  death  and  res- 
urrection of  Christ.  The  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  supper  invariably  represents  all 
that.  This  was  fully  shown  in  some  re- 
marks in  my  first  speech,  which  I  told  you 
would  be  useful  to  you,  and  annoying  to 
IMr.  F.,  throughout  the  discussion.  He  af- 
fected to  make  light  of  those  remarks,  pro- 
fessed not  to  see  their  bearing,  etc.;  but  he 
knew  better  than  to  attempt  to  answer 
them.     Now  he   overlooks   the   legal    and 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  299 

moral  aspects  of  the  Christian  system,  fails 
to  see  the  real  foundation  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  runs  into  the  blunder  of  making 
iDaj^tism  represent  the  death  and  burial  of 
Jesus  Christ !  Surely  he  will  let  the  past 
go,  and  begin  anew.  "  We  are  huriedy  I 
hope  we  shall  ever  be  buried  !  But  we  are 
also  ^^  crucified.''  This  alludes  to  the  mode 
of  baptism  as  much  as  the  other.  Hence 
the  scope  of  the  passage  is  against  the  no- 
tions of  my  friend.  Look  at  the  other 
part:  "  That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  " — he  raised  ujp  out  of 
the  water  ?  Perhaps  Mr.  Franklin  would 
have  written  it  thus,  but  St.  Paul  did  not. 
"  Even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life."  I  have  more  to  say  on  these  pas- 
sages, but  will  wait  until  my  oj^ponent 
makes  another  attempt. 

I  will  close  this  speech  by  presenting  one 
more  example  of  the  use  of  the  word  haptizo. 
I  select  it  from  the  Apocrapha,  and  present 
it  only  as  an  illustration  of  the  use  of  the 
word  :  "  He  that  washeth  himself  from  a 
dead  body,  and  toucheth  it  again,  what 
availeth  his  washing ;"  Ecc.  xxxiv.  25. 
Here  are  two  words  rendered  icash  in  the 
same  verse.  The  last  one — loutro — is  un- 
questionably generic^  and  the  first  is  not 
more  specific,  but  bears  the  same  general 
sense  in  this  place.  My  friend  will  never 
be  able  to  make  baptizomenos  specific,  and 
loutro  generic,  when  the  words  occur  in  the 


300  DEBATE   ON   THE 

same  verse,  and  answer  precisely  to  each 
other.  But  what  is  meant  by  the  expres- 
sion, "He  that  washeth  himself  from  a  dead 
body?"  It  is  an  allusion  to  the  require- 
ment of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  enjoined 
upon  all  persons  who  might  touch  a  dead 
body  to  be  purified  by  the  sprinhling  of  the 
water  of  purification  upon  them.  I  have 
time  now  merely  to  present  the  law  re- 
quiring the  washing  expressed  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us  by  the  word  hajjtizomenos.  It 
is  found  in  Numbers  xix.  17-19  :  "And  for 
an  unclean  person  they  shall  take  of  the 
ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for 
sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put  there- 
to in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  person  shall  take 
hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and 
sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all  the 
vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were 
there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a  bone, 
or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave;  and 
the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  upon  the 
unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the 
seventh  day ;  and  on  the  seventh  day  he 
shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his  clothes, 
and  bathe  himself  in  water  and  shall  be 
clean  at  even."  This  ^vas  the  law,  and  it  is 
plain  that  the  real  jmrijicatioii  was  in  the 
s/>riVi/»;/i»^  of  the  water  by  the  clean  person 
upon  the  unclean.  Hence  the  reason  as- 
signed in  the  13th  verse,  why  the  person 
shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel :  "  Whosoever 
toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  that  is 
dead,  and  piirifieth  not  himself,  defileth  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  301 

tabernacle  of  the  Lord;  and  that  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  Israel,  because  the  loatcr  of 
separation  was  not  sprinkled  upon  Jiim,  he  shall 
be  imclean ;  hia  uncleanness  is  yet  upon 
him."  This  whole  j^rocess  of  purification, 
the  principal  part  of  which  is  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  water  of  separation,  is  expressed 
b}^  the  generic  term  baptizo^  which  is  used 
synonymously  with  louo.  Let  my  friend 
Franklin  dispute  this,  and  get  round  if  he 
can. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  FOURTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  am  anxious  to  lay  my  main  arguments 
before  the  worthy  gentleman  to-night,  that 
he  may  have  the  benefit  of  a  night's  medi- 
tation on  them  and  the  full  day  to-morrow 
to  try  their  strength.  I  shall,  therefore, 
proceed  with  my  regular  argument.  I  have 
nothing  in  view  but  to  bring  out  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
and,  therefore,  present  my  reasons  for  my 
position  as  early  and  fully  as  possible,  that 
the  fairest  opportunity  may  be  afforded  to 
assail  them.  I  wish  the  worthy  gentleman 
to  try  every  point — make  his  besi  effort;  if 
aught  can  bo  invalidated,  let  it  be  done.  I 
want  nothing  that  is  not  substantial  and  re- 
liable. If  1  am  in  any  danger,  let  it  be 
seeni^orif  I  am  likely  to  lead  any  other 
person  astray,  let  it  api^ear. 


302  I)EBATE   ON   THE 

XV".  My  fifteenth  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  expression,  "born  of  water."  This 
important  figurative  expression  is  found  in 
the  language  of  our  Lord,  in  his  conversa- 
tion with  ISTicodemus,  John  iii.  5,  and  in 
the  Methodist  Discipline,  applied  to  bap- 
tism. Mr.  M.  and  myself  are  perfectly 
agreed,  that  "born  of  water,"  is  haptism. 
Ko  matter  how  highly  figurative  an  ex- 
pression may  be,  it  must,  to  be  admitted  as 
a  proper  figure  at  all,  have  some  semblance, 
in  some  particular,  or  in  some  respect,  to 
the  literal.  Yet,  no  figure  is  exactly  like 
the  literal  in  all  respects  ;  and  many  figures 
are  like  the  literal  only  in  a  single  feature, 
or  in  one  i3articular.  In  this  figurative  ex- 
pression, there  is  one  clear  point  of  resem- 
_.blance  to  the  literal.  In  the  literal  birth, 
there  is  a  coming  forth  from  the  mother. 
In  the  figurative  expression,  "born  of 
water,"  the  person  is  contemplated  as 
coming  forth  from  the  water,  as  the  child 
comes  forth  from  the  mother.  Coming 
forth  from  immersion,  has  a  semblance  to 
coming  forth  from  a  natural  birth,  but  com- 
ing forth  from  sprinkling,  has  no  such  sem- 
blance. 

There  is  no  figurative  expression  in  my 
acquaintance,  that  is  more  opposite,  ap- 
propriate and  forcible  than  this  simple  and 
unadorned  figurative  expression  from  the 
holy  lips  of  our  Lord,  nor  is  there  one 
which  those  capable  of  ai)preciating  it,  feel 
more   sensiblj^    than   this,  when    they   see 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.       ,  303 

those  immersed  rise  and  struggle  for  the 
first  breath  in  the  new  state,  or  the  new 
creation.  In  this  figurative  exjoression,  the 
water  is  in  the  place  of  the  mother,  and  the 
Spirit  the  place  of  the  father.  Those  born 
of  God  are  begotten  by  the  word  of  truth, 
uttered  by  the  lips  of  the  holy  Apostles,  under 
the  unerring  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, and  brought  forth  from  their  baptism  to 
the  enjoyment  of  the  new  state.  Such  are 
"  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  as  the 
child  is  born  of  its  mother  and  father,  or  of 
its  parents.  But  there  is  nothing  in  sprink- 
ling that  has  the  least  semblance  to  a  birth. 
If  the  worthy  gentleman  should  choose  to 
follow  in  the  wake  of  Dr.  Eice,  and  inform 
us,  that  "Jerusalem  from  above  is  the  moth- 
er of  us  all,"  thus  trying  to  render  a  figure 
ridiculous  by  literalizing  it,  I  would  save 
him  of  both  the  weakness  and  trouble  of 
so  doing,  by  informing  him  that  no  one 
thinks  the  water  is  the  mother  of  the  church, 
or  the  individual  members;  but  in  being 
"born  of  water,"  they  come  forth  from  the 
water  as  the  child  comes  forth  from  its  moth- 
er. An  effort  to  literalize  a  figure,  shows 
either  unfairness  or  that  a  man  has  not 
studied  the  nature  of  figurative  language. 
XYI.  My  sixteenth  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  expression,  "  planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  His  death,"  Eom.  vi.  5. 
There  are  three  points  in  this  one  expres- 
sion that  do  not  suit  sprinkling  and  cannot 
be  harmonized  with  it.     1,  "Planted;"     2, 

21 


304  DEBATE   ON   THE 

"  Likeness  of  His  death ;"  3,  "  Likeness  of 
His  resurrection."  Planting  itself  has  no 
resemblance  to  sprinkling.  Planting  is  not 
done  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  but  by  hury- 
ing.  The  planting  mentioned  here,  was  in 
the  likeness  of  the  death  of  Christ.  In  His 
death,  he  was  buried  ;  and  when  persons  are 
in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  they  are  bu- 
ried. Those  mentioned  here,  were  not  only 
planted,  and  in  the  likeness  of  the  death 
of  Christ  in  His  burial,  but  they  were  in 
the  likeness  of  His  resurrection.  In  im- 
mersion there  is  a  planting,  a  burial,  in  the 
likeness  of  the  burial  of  Christ,  in  His 
death,  and  a  resurrection  like  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead.  In  sprinkling  there  is  no 
planting,  no  likeness  of  the  death  of  Christ 
and  no  likeness  of  a  resurrection.  The 
entire  force  of  all  these  expressions  is  lost 
in  sprinkling.  There  is  nothing  bearing 
the  least  analogy  to  these  expressions.  The 
sprinkler  has  nothing  to  say  about  plant- 
ing together  the  in  likeness  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  or  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection. 
He  has  nothing  bearing  any  similitude 
to  these  expressions,  and  consequently  no 
use  for  them. 

XYII.  My  seventeenth  argument  is 
founded  upon  baptizing  in  water  and  the 
hody  being  washed  icith  ivater.  "Let  us 
draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assu- 
rance of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed    with    pure   water  j"   Heb.   x.   22. 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  305 

Here  my  friend  can  find  the  words  "  sprink- 
led "  and  "washed,"  from  their  proper 
representatives  in  the  original;  but,  unfor- 
tunately for  my  friend,  the  sprinkling  ap- 
plies to  the  hearty  and  the  washing  to  the 
hody,  as  a  result  of  baptism.  This  is  a  fatal 
passage  to  the  practice  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring.  In  the  practice  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in 
the  shape  of,  or  that  could,  by  any  kind  of 
stretch  of  imagination,  be  called  washing 
of  the  body.  In  many  instances,  as  now 
practiced,  we  see  neither  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing nor  immersion.  It  is  neither  the 
sprinkling  mode^  the  pouring  mode  or  im- 
mersing mode,  and  we  find  no  washing  the 
hody  in  pure  loater,  but  simply  moistened  Jingers 
laid  upon  the  face.  When  I  see  such  prac- 
tice as  this,  I  cannot  help  feeling  that  some 
men  are  simply  trying  how  ridiculous  they 
can  render  the  commandment  of  God  in 
the  eyes  of  the  world.  In  all  such  perver- 
sions and  corruptions  of  the  primitive  prac- 
tice, the  idea  of  imitating  Jesus,  in  his  bajD- 
tism,  or  following  the  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tles, never  appears  to  enter  into  the  mind 
at  all,  unless  it  be  to  oppose  it. 

But  in  the  case  of  the  present  argument, 
we  plant  our  foot  upon  two  plain  state- 
ments of  the  common  version,  as  follows: 
1,  Baptizing  m  the  river,  or  m  the  waters 
of  Jordan;  2,  The  result  that  follows  bap- 
tizing in  the  water — "  their  bodies  loashed 
with  pure  water.''     In    sprinkling  or   pour- 


306  DEBATE    ON   THE 

ing,  there  are  two  matters  of  fact  wanting 
to  make  a  New  Testament  baptism.  1, 
They  are  not  baptized  in  water,  or  the 
river ;  2,  Their  bodies  are  not  washed 
with  water.  In  plain  matter  of  fact,  sprink- 
ling or  pouring  does  not  fill  the  descrip- 
tion. In  sprinkling,  laying  wet  fingers 
upon  the  face,  or  pouring,  they  are  not 
baptized  in  water,  and  the  bodies  are  not 
washed  with  water.  In  immersing,  they 
are  baptized  in  water,  and  their  bodies  are 
washed  with  water.  Neither  he  nor  any 
man  living  can  escape  this  argument  from 
now  till  the  day  of  judgment. 

XVIII.  My  eighteenth  argument  is 
founded  upon  the  baptism  of  sufi'erings. 
I  have  already  alluded  to  this,  as  an  illus- 
tration ;  but  it  is  too  important,  in  this  dis- 
cussion, to  pass  in  that  way.  I  intend 
making  a  distinct  argument  upon  it,  and 
one  that  I  rely  upon  with  much  confidence, 
and  invito  the  special  attention  of  my 
worth}^  friend  to  it.  I  prove,  first,  from  the 
baptism  of  sufferings,  that  haptlsm  is  not  the 
name  of  an  ordinance,  for  here  we  have 
baptism  where  there  is  no  ordinance.  This 
could  not  be  if  baptism  were  the  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance,  for  the  proper 
name,  properly  used,  must  refer  to  that  of 
which  it  is  the  proper  name.  The  proper 
name  of  Mr.  Merrill  always  means  Mr. 
Merrill.  The  j)roper  name  of  the  ordinance 
always  means  the  ordinance;  but  here,  as 
in    many    other  places,    we  find   baptism 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  307 

where  we  all  agree  that  it  does  not  mean 
the  ordinance.  The  word  hajytism  does  not, 
then,  mean  ordinance,  and  is  not  the  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance.  The  word  baj^tize 
has  no  matter  in  it,  for  here,  in  the  baptism 
of  sufferings,  we  have  baptism  without 
water.  In  one  single  word,  we  have  bap- 
tism here  without  any  ordinance,  or  rite, 
without  water,  moistening,  cleansing,  wash- 
ing, purifying,  sprinkling  or  pouring,  con- 
sisting simply  of  an  immersion,  or  an  over- 
whelming in  suffering,  when  the  Lord 
poured  out  his  soul  unto  death  and  made 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin. 

No  man  has  ever  attempted,  so  far  as  I 
recollect,  to  make  it  appear  that  the  bap- 
tism of  sufferings  was  sprinkling.  The 
Lord  was  not  sprinkled  in  sufferings,  nor 
poured,  but  he  was  immersed  or  over- 
whelmed in  sufferings  as  we  are  over- 
whelmed in  the  waters  of  baptism,  when 
we  are  in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  This 
fixes  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  It 
can  have  nothing  to  do  with  any  definition 
but  one,  and  that  one  is  immerse,  or  over- 
whelm. This  is  what  the  word  means,  and 
all  it  means,  no  matter  whether  apj^lied  to 
the  rite,  or  what.  It  means  immerse,  or 
overwhelm. 

Having  now  briefly  stated  the  main  body 
of  the  argument,  during  the  first  day,  and 
my  first  speech  to-night,  that  my  opponent 
may  have  a  fair  opportunity  to  examine  it, 
I  shall  proceed  to  notice  some  things  in  the 


308  DEBATE   ON   THE 

worthy  gentleman's  speeches   that  I  have 
paid  but  little   attention   to.     I  shall  also 
elaborate   my  arguments   and   more   fully 
develop  them  as  we  proceed,  and  as  occa- 
sion shall  require.     The  first  thing,  then,  I 
shall  advert  to,  is  the  fact    that   evidently 
stands  out  clear  to  this  audience,   that  Mr. 
M.  and  those  agreeing  with  him,  have   no 
tangible  doctrine,    no   well  defined  princi- 
ples, nor  clear  teaching  on  the  whole  sub- 
ject under   discussion.      Every   man    does 
that  which   seems   good   in  his  own  eyes. 
One   man   is   immersed,  another   has   had 
water  poured  upon  him,   another  has  been 
sprinkled    upon,    another    kneels    in    the 
water  and  is  poured  upon,  and  yet  another 
kneels     and     is     sprinkled     upon  !       The 
preacher  seems  to   have   no  conscience  in 
the   matter ;   but  regarding   it  as  a   little 
unpleasant  to  go  down  into  the  water,  and 
baptize    in   the  water,  in   the  river  ;  bury 
the  person  in  baptism ;   thus  washing  the 
body   in   water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,    according    to    the    Scriptures,    he 
preaches  a  sermon,  the  burden  of  which  is 
to  satisfy  the  new  converts  that  sprinkling 
or  pouring  will  do  as  well  as   immersion. 
But  it  frequently  turns  out  that  a  portion 
of  his  own  converts  do  not  believe  him,  and 
can  not  be  persuaded  that  any  thing  but 
immersion    is  baptism.     They   must  he  im- 
mersed^   and   he,    pliable    and    easy    man, 
though   he  does  not  believe  there    is   any 
authority  for  immersion  in  the  Bible,  goes 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  309 

down  into  the  water  and  lifts  his  hand  to 
heaven,  and  j)ronounces  immcrsiori  haptism^ 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ! 

That  the  Methodist  church  has  no  light 
on  the  subject,  is  as  evident  as  any  proposi- 
tion in  this  world.  The  preachers  have  no 
agreement  about  it,  unless  it  be  a  kind  of 
general  understanding  that  they  do  not 
like,  and  will  oppose,  immersion.  They 
generally  say  that  there  is  no  authority  for 
immersion,  and  that  they  can  prove  sprink- 
ling ;  but  many  of  their  own  converts  do 
not  believe  them,  will  not  be  sprinkled,  but 
will  be  immersed.  When  the  preacher 
can  not  convince  the  candidate  that  he  is 
right,  and  the  candidate  wrong,  the  good 
man  gives  up  to  the  convert,  yields  his  own 
views  to  a  young  convert,  and  practices 
contrary  to  his  own  preaching,  his  own 
feelings,  and  does  all  this  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord !  How  are  the  people  to  be  estab- 
lished in  any  thing  under  such  a  ministra- 
tion as  this?  Ko  wonder  if  a  man  should 
waver,  when  he  hears  his  own  preacher,  in 
whom  he  has  had  confidence,  and  whom  he 
loves,  declare  before  the  church,  and  be- 
fore his  God,  that  there  is  no  authority  for 
immersion,  and  then  go  forth  to  the  water, 
and  not  only  immerse  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  but  call  it  baptism  ! 

AYhat  has  my  worthy  friend,  with  his 
fine  talents,  his  liberal  learning,  pleasant 
and  agreeable  manners,  even  attempted  to 
prove  ?    What  has  ho  tried   to   establish  ? 


310  DEBATE    ON    THE 

What  point  has  he  labored  to  make  clear 
and    intelligible    to    this    audience?     He 
comes  forward,  declaring  that  the  manner 
of  baptizing  is  not  revealed  ;  yet  admitting 
that  immersion  is  baptism,  that  he  has  ad- 
ministered it,    calling   it  baptism,   in    the 
name  of  the  Lord  !     But  what  is  he  trying 
to  maintain?     The  whole  seems  to  amount 
to  about  this:  The  manner  of  baptizing  is 
not  revealed  ;    the  whole  subject  is  left  in 
the  dark  ;  therefore,  any  way  will  do.     But 
this  will  not  do  for   conscientious   people. 
They  can  not  practice,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,    what   the   Lord    did    not    appoint. 
They  cannot  immerse,  nor  be  immersed,  if 
the  Lord  did  not  command  it.    If  the  whole 
matter  is  in  the  dark  ;  if  we   can  not  tell 
what  the  Lord  commanded,  we  had  better, 
a  thousand  times,  do  nothing,  than  do  some- 
thing in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  not  know- 
ing whether  it  is  what  the  Lord  command- 
ed or  not.     If  my  opponent's  logic  amounts 
to  any  thing,  it  is  simply  to  mystify   and 
darken  counsel,  and  not  to  throw  any  light 
on  the  subject.     Has  he  referred  you  to   a 
clear  exam23le  of  bajDtizing  in  the  i^ew  Tes- 
tament, and  claimed  that  it  was  sprinkling 
or    pouring  ?     'Not    one.     Where    has    he 
been  ?     Back  under  Moses,  consulting  the 
Jewish  ritual,  the    ceremonies,    the    types, 
and  shadows,  the  baptisms  of  cups,  pots 
beds  and  the  like.     He    can    learn    Chris_^ 
tianity  faster  from  the  types  than  the  anti_ 
tyi^esj  from  the  shadow  than  the  substanco 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  311 

from  the  law  than  the  gospel,  the  letter 
than  the  Spirit,  the  promise  than  the  full 
development  of  the  good  things  to  come. 
The  fall  glory  of  Christian  light,  as  deline- 
ated in  the  teachings  and  practice  of  the 
holy  Apostles,  as  found  upon  the  sacred 
pages  of  the  ]^ew  Testament,  is  too  reful- 
gent for  his  vision.  It  suits  his  work  of 
mystification  better  to  he  back  among  types 
and  shadows,  cujos,  pots  and  couches,  than 
under  the  clear  light  of  the  gospel.  But 
what  did  he  find  among  the  Jewish  cups, 
pots  and  beds?  Did  he  find  any  ordinance, 
or  rite,  such  as  we  are  debating  about  ? 
JSTot  at  all.  It  is  true  he  found  his  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance,  but  no  ordinance  or 
rite!  AYhat  was  he  here  for,  then?  The 
object  of  baptizing  the  cups,  pots  and  beds, 
was  to  wash  them.  The  reason  the  trans- 
lators had  for  translating  haptizo  tvash,  in 
some  few  cases,  referring  to  these  Jewish 
ceremonies,  Avas  that  the  object  of  the  bap- 
tizing was  to  wash  them,  and  they  gave  the 
object  in  the  place  of  the  proper  translation 
of  the  word,  which  they  should  not  have 
done.  The  intention  of  the  word  was  not 
to  reveal  the  object,  but  the  tiling  done.  The 
object  of  baptizing  the  cups  and  beds  must 
be  learned  from  some  other  source. 

But  since,  I  presume,  we  are  agreed  that 
the  object  of  baptizing  the  cups,  pots  and 
beds  was  to  Avash  them,  permit  rac  to  in- 
quire of'  the  worthy  gentleman,  if  they 
sprinkled  them  to  wash  them.     Did  any- 


312  DEBATE    ON    THE 

body  ever  sprinkle  any  thing,  when  the 
object  was  to  wash  it?  Did  they  pour 
those  pots,  Clips  and  beds  to  wash  them  ? 
1^0,  sir ;  this  is  preposterous  in  the 
highest  degree.  They  immersed  them  to 
wash  them,  and  immersing  them  did 
wash  them  ;  but  sprinkling  or  pouring 
them  did  not  wash  them.  Washing  was 
not  then,  and  is  not  now,  done  by  sprink- 
ling, no  matter  whether  it  be  cups,  beds  or 
the  hands.  There  was  not  then,  and  is  not 
now,  and  can  not  be,  any  such  thing  as 
washing  cups,  pots,  beds  or  hands  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  them.  When  the 
object  was  to  wash  cups,  pots,  beds  and 
hands,  they  dipped  them,  or  immersed 
them,  in  water,  to  accomplish  that  object, 
but  did  not  think  of  sprinkling  or  pouring 
cups,  pots,  beds  and  hands  to  wash  them. 
By  the  way,  since  my  worthy  friend 
is  pretty  ingenious,  I  should  like  to  see 
him,  especially  as  he  is  so  expert  in  Jewish 
ceremonies,  sprinkle  or  pour  a  lot  of  cwps, 
pots,  beds  and  hands !  I  should  like  to  see 
how  it  could  be  done,  and,  especially,  how 
it  could  result  in  washing  them  ! 

The  worthy  gentleman  thinks  the  ex- 
amples I  have  given,  where  baj^to  is  trans- 
lated dij^,  are  such  as  to  preclude  im- 
mersion. Indeed  !  Then  the  King  James' 
translators  have  erred  in  favor  of  Baptists, 
in  giving  us  chp  from  hapto,  where  it  can 
not  be  dip  !  Why  did  not  he  then  show  us, 
if  dij)  is  not  a  proper  rendering,  what  would 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  313 

be  ?     Perhaps  he  would  render  as  follows  : 
"  Send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  sprinkle   his 
finger  in  water  and  cool  my  tongue!"  "He 
who  sprinldtth  his  hand  in  the    dish    with 
me  shall  betray  me."     "  Shall  come   with 
his  garments  sprinlded  in  blood."     "  When 
he  sprinkled  the  sop,  he  gave  it  to   Judas." 
Or  would  he  render — ''■poured,  his  hand   in 
the  dish  " — ^^ pour  his  finger  in   water  " — 
*'  His  garments  po2^re<:Z  in  blood."     There  is 
not  a  simpler  expression  in  human  speech, 
when  we  consider  their  ancient,  simple  and 
unpolished  manner  of  living   and   eating, 
where   they  sat   round   their    large    dish, 
without  knife  or  fork,  each  one  taking  his 
bread  in  his  hand,   and  dipping  it  in  the 
gravy  in  the  dish,  called  it  "  dipping   the 
hand  in  the  dish."     It  was   not   sprinkling 
the  hand  in  the  dish,  noY  pouring  the  hand 
in  the  dish.     ~^o  man  could  see  how   this 
could  be  done,  but  a  child  can   understand 
how  a  man  could  "  dip   his   hand   in   the 
dish."     The  expression,  "  dip  his  finger  in 
water,"  is  perfectly  simple  ;  but  sprinkle  his 
finger  in  water,  ov  pour  his  finger  in  water, 
is  wholly  unintelligible.     No  man  can  ever 
feel  satisfied  with  a  practice  requiring  such 
cavilling   as    my   opponent's    position,    on 
these   expressions,   does.     The    "garments 
dipped  in  blood,"  Mr.   M.   thinks   clearly 
against  me.     But  he  is  widely  mistaken  in 
this.     The  language  here  is  figurative  ;  but 
the  idea'of  dipping  is  as  evidently  found  in 
its  full  force  here  as  in  any  other   passage. 


314  DEBATE    ON    THE 

There  would  bo  no  force  in  saying,  Ho 
shall  come  with  hiH  gai'mcnts  sprinkled  in 
blood  or  poured  in  blood  ;  but  the  force  is 
great,  when  we  read  that  he  shall  come 
with  his  garments  dfjiped  in  blood.  The 
majesty  of  the  great  conqueror,  the  mighty 
victor  and  caj)tain  of  our  salvation  ;  the 
awe,  terror  and  horror  to  liis  en(!mies,  are 
heightened  and  enforced  by  the  declaration, 
that  he  shall  come  with  his  garments  <//}>- 
pc.d  in  blood ;  but  the  power  of  the  expres- 
sion is  greatly  let  down  when  Ave  say  lie 
shall  come  with  his  garments  sprinldcd  in 
blood.  This  detracts  from  the  true  import 
of  the  expression,  precisely  as  it  does  to 
say,  "  lie  shall  .sy>ym/;/e  in  the  Holy  Sj)irit 
and  in  fire,"  or  "  Can  you  be  aprinklr.d  with 
the  sprinlc/inr/ thiit  I  am  to  bes/;?-m/i^/(7/with?" 
Tile  true  state  oi' the  case  is,  that  there  is 
no  such  idea  as  sprinkling  connected  with 
any  of  these  expressions,  no  matter  wheth- 
er used  figuratively  or  literally.  The  idea 
of  immersion  is  always  present,  and  noth- 
ing else  can  fill  their  import. 

The  ([ucstion  we  are  discussing  is  not  a 
mere  theoretical  one,  but  a  ])ractical  one. 
We  are  all  concerned  in  it.  Kvery  honest 
person  that  ever  makes  a  proJesyion  of  re- 
ligion, must  make  some  sort  of  a  decision 
in  reference  to  it.  The  object  of  our  de- 
bate is  not  victory,  l)ut  to  elicit  truth  ;  to 
throw  light  upon  the  ])a(h  of  the  sincere, 
who  are  trying  to  serve  (iod.  My  object  is 
to  show  sincere  persons  how  they  may  pro- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  315 

ceed  safely  and  intolligontly  in  this  im- 
portant matter.  In  actino-  upon  the  Bub- 
jcct.  what  are  the  courses  tliat  may  bo  pur- 
sued? Or,  in  other  words,  what  have  they 
to  decide  upon  ?  Or  wliat  have  tliey  to 
choose  between?  They  liave  the  following: 

1.  The  Friend,  or,  as  called  by  others, 
the  Quaker,  says  that  water  baptism,  as 
performed  by  the  A])ostles,  was  unquestion- 
ably immersion  ;  but  that  it  was  8im])iy  a 
Jewish  ceremony,  and  not  intended,  by  our 
Savior,  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  church  of 
Christ.  He  claims  that  he  has  the  inward 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  all  that  is 
required  in  our  day.  Here  is  one  choice, 
and  a  few  thousand  peojde,  absurd  as  it 
may  ap])ear,  have  taken  this  as  the  mean- 
ing of  tlie  Bible  on  the  subject. 

2.  A  second  ground  is  to  conclude  that 
tlio  Y)recise  manner  of  baptizing  is  not  re- 
vealed ;  that  it  can  not  now  be  determined 
how  the  Apostles  did  baptize,  and,  conse- 
quently, that  the  whole  matter  is  in  the 
dark,  and  we  cannot  tell  anything  about  it. 
Many  have  come  to  this  conclusion,  given 
the  matter  u])  and  decided  not  to  do  any 
thing,  as  they  have  decided  that  what  is  to 
be  done  is  not  revealed. 

3.  A  third  class  have  decided  that  im- 
mersion, and  nothing  else,  is  baptism;  have 
been  immersed,  and  are  perfectly  satisiied. 

4.  A  iburth  class  have  decided  that  the 
mode,  as  they  call  it,  is  not  revealed,  and, 
consequently,  that  the  whole   matter  is  left 


316  DEBATE   ON   THE 

merely  to  the  caprice  of  the  candidate,  to 
be  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  or  immersed 
in  water.  These  have  no  established  prac- 
tice in  any  way,  and,  consequently,  the 
minds  of  their  members  are  constantly  be- 
ing unsettled  in  regard  to  their  baptism. 
They  have  immersionists  and  sprinklers  all  in 
"  the  same  faith  and  order,"  and,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  much  trouble  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

5.  A  fifth  class  have  decided  to  practice 
nothing  but  sprinkling,  have  been  sprinkled 
and  try  to  satisfy  themselves  that  sprink- 
ling will  do. 

6.  A  sixth  class  have  had  water  poured 
upon  them,  and  defend  that  as  the  right 
way,  and  try  to  satisfy  themselves  that 
pouring  will  do. 

7.  A  seventh  class  have  gone  down  into 
the  water,  kneeled  down  and  had  water 
poured  upon  their  heads,  and  consequently 
defend  that,  as  the  right  way,  and  try  to 
satisfy  themselves  that  it  will  do. 

8.  An  eighth  class  go  down  into  the  wa- 
ter and  immerse  three  times  face  foremost. 

Now,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  confusion, 
what  is  to  be  done  ?  Those  who  claim  that 
we  should  be  immersed  three  times  are 
comparatively  few,  and  if  we  should  re- 
move the  difficulty  out  of  the  way  for  all 
but  these,  it  would  narrow  it  down  very 
much,  if  we  should  never  satisfy  these. 
Besides,  they  admit  that  haptizo  means 
immerse^  and  consequently  when  the  Apos- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  317 

tie  says,  "  There  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,"  it  is  the  same  as  "  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  immersion."  This  is  sufficient 
to  decide  the  case  with  all  of  these  who 
are  not  beyond  the  precincts  of  reason. 
The  class  that  are  so  perplexed  and  con- 
fused that  they  will  not  try  to  do  anything, 
would  be  relieved,  if  the  sprinklers,  pourers 
and  immersers,  were  onl}^  reconciled.  In- 
deed, the  main  difficulty  would  be  removed^ 
if  these  three  parties  would  settle  their 
dispute.  Is  there,  then,  any  ground  upon 
which  they  can  settle  their  dispute  ?  I 
think  there  is. 

Mr.  M.  admits  that  immersion  is  valid 
baptism  and,  in  some  instances,  practices 
it.  He  does  not  doubt  that  immersion  is 
baptism,  for  when  he  immerses,  he  lifts  his 
hand  to  heaven  and  says,  "  I  baptize  you  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  He  thus  calls 
immersion  baptism,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  and  administers  it  consciously.  He 
can,  then,  immerse.  Dr.  N.  L.  Rice,  said 
in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Campbell,  that  he 
never  denied  that  immersion  is  baptism. 
In  one  single  word,  almost  all  sprinklers 
and  pourers  receive  immersed  persons, 
without  ever  questioning  their  baptism.  In 
one  word,  they  almost  all  admit,  with  Mr. 
M.,  that  immersion  is  valid.  What,  then, 
is  the  dispute  about  ?  It  is  not  about  im- 
mersion, but  about  sprinkling  and  pouring. 
They  have  always  been  in  doubt  ever  since 


318  DEBATE    ON    THE 

they  have  been  in  existence.  How  shall 
we  then  get  rid  of  the  dispute,  except  by 
ceasing  to  practice  that  which  has  always 
been  in  dispute,  and  always  practice  that 
which  has  never  been  in  doubt?  I  will, 
before  I  take  my  seat,  introduce  a  plain 
illustration  that  has  been  used  a  great 
many  times  before.  Suppose  I  owe  a  man 
in  this  audience  ten  dollars  ;  I  lay  down 
one  ten  dollar  bill,  saying,  "  I  believe  it 
good,  but  some  judges  say  it  is  a  counter- 
feit." I  lay  down  a  second  bill  of  a  similar 
description.  I  also  lay  down  a  ten  dollar 
gold  piece,  saying,  "  They  all  agree  that 
this  is  good;  you  can  have  your  choice." 
Which  would  he  take,  one  of  the  doubtful 
bills,  or  the  gold  piece  ?  ISTot  a  man  here 
would  hesitate  one  moment,  but  would 
forthwith  take  the  gold.  Well,  immersion 
is  the  gold.  It  has  been  good  all  the  time. 
An  immersed  person  has  been  regarded  as 
baptized  generally,  and  by  almost  all  par- 
ties. Here,  then,  is  something  that  we  can 
agree  in  and  practice,  with  a  good  con- 
science. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  FOURTH  REPLY. 

Gkntlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

As  the  gentleman  proceeded  to  advance 
his  affirmative  arguments,  in  his  last 
speech,  before  noticing  what  I  had  said  in 
reply,    I    will    immediately  attend  to   his 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  319- 

"  arguments,"  and  then  follow  him  in  hig 
miscellaneous  matters,  as  I  judge  fit.  He 
is  still  bold  and  confident,  and  dishes  out 
to  us  by  the  wholesale  the  very  strongest 
kinds  of-^ — assertions. 

XY.  His  fifteenth  argument  is  founded 
on  the  expression,  "  born  of  water."  This 
expression  occurs  in  our  Lord's  conversa- 
tion with  Nicodemus,  John  iii.  5,  and  is 
undoubtedly  figurative.  Mr.  F.  admits 
that  it  is  figurative  ;  and  he  admits,  further, 
that  in  order  to  be  a  figure  at  all,  it  must 
"  have  some  semblance,  in  some  particular, 
or  in  some  respect,  to  the  literal."  The 
literal  what  ?  Why,  certainly  the  thing 
the  figure  is  designed  to  represent.  But 
what  is  it  designed  to  represent  in  this 
case  ?  Most  unquestionably  the  quicken- 
ing power  and  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  the  moral  renovation  of  the  soul.  But 
how  far  must  the  resemblance,  between  the 
figure  and  the  thing  represented,  be  car- 
ried ?  This  is  an  important  point.  It  is 
right  here  Mr.  F.  violates  the  rules  of  in- 
terpretation, and  presses  the  matter  beyond 
all  propriety  and  modesty.  The  Savior 
never  intended  this  figurative  expression 
to  be  used  in  this  way.  But  Mr.  F.  says 
truly,  that  "  no  figure  is  exactly  like  the 
literal  in  all  respects,  and  many  figures  are 
like  the  literal  only  in  a  single  feature,  or 
in  one  particular."  This  is  just  the  case 
with  the  fiijrurc  before  us.  The  leading 
thought  in  the  expression,  is,  that  there  is 

22 


320  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  beginning  of  a  new  manner  of  life.  In 
the  literal  birth,  there  is  the  beginning  of 
a  new  manner  of  life  ;  in  the  new  birth, 
effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  there  is  the 
beginning  of  a  new  spiritual  life  ;  and  so 
in  the  emblematic  representation  of  it, 
there  is  a  conformity  of  language  and  idea, 
without  any  allusion  to  the  manner  of  the 
birth.  Nothing  is  more  crude,  forced  and 
inelegant,  than  the  gentleman's  view  of 
this  matter.  I  am  tempted  to  call  it  an 
outrage  upon  all  the  laws  of  figurative  lan- 
guage, and  upon  good  taste  and  common 
sense  itself.  Surely  nothing  but  a  deter- 
mination to  force  the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures into  the  support  of  a  favorite  dogma, 
could  induce  a  man  to  make  such  use  of  a 
figurative  expression.  "In  this  figurative 
expression  the  water  is  in  the  place  of  the 
mother,  and  the  Spirit  in  the  place  of  the 
father  I"  Bless  me  !  to  what  lengths  will 
the  man  go,  rather  than  fail  to  find  proof 
of  his  notions  !  Then,  after  this,  he  cau- 
tions us  against  literalizing  a  figure  !  Surely 
the  caution  comes  with  good  grace  from 
him,  after  trying  to  run  this  figure  upon 
all  fours.  Of  course,  we  never  pretend  to 
find  a  resemblance  between  a  birth  and  the 
sprinkling  of  water  ;  h^it  the  figure  does  not 
relate  to  the  manner  of  haptism  at  all.  It 
represents  the  beginning  of  a  new  life,  and 
is  called  a  birth  on  that  account. 

But  while  on  the  subject,  I  will  catechise 
my  friend  a  little.     Does  the  Savior  men- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM .  321 

tion  two  distinct  births,  or  but  one?  If 
two,  into  what  lifo  does  each  one  separately 
introduce  us?  It'  but  one,  what  is  it  that 
is  the  basis  of  the  figure — the  spirit,  or  the 
water  ?  What  is  the  relation  of  water  to 
the  Spirit?  And  is  the  water  the  emblem 
or  the  condition  of  the  Spirit's  influence  ? 
Will  Mr.  F.  look  at  these  matters?  If  ho 
will,  he  may  rise  above  the  uncouth  ideas 
ho  has  imbibed,  in  regard  to  this  beautiful 
representation  of  the  Spirit's  work,  Ia 
renewing  and  sanctifying  the  soul. 

XYI.  His  sixteenth  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  expression,  "  Planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death;"  Itom.  vi.  5. 
This  argument  was  suflicicntly  answered 
in  my  last  speech,  when  I  showed  that  the 
whole  passage  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  bajitism  ;  and  also  in  my  first 
speech,  in  showing  that  baptism  is  not 
designed  to  represent  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  at  all.  But  while 
my  friend  continues  to  catch  at  straws,  I 
must  continue  to  answer  whatever  ho  dig- 
nifies with  the  name  of  argument. 

The  word  s'uvi2^hutoi\  here  rendered 
planted  together,  is  derived  from  sun,  with, 
and  ^j/t?fo,  to  grow,  and  literally  moans  ^o 
ffrow  together.  Critics  tell  lis  that  it  is  a 
metaphor  taken  from  graft iny ;  and  wo  can 
all  see  how  well  it  rc])rcHents  the  union 
between  (ylirist  and  true  believers;  that  as 
the  scion  grows  together  with  the  stock 
into  which  it  is   inserted,  deriving  its  life 


322  DEBATE   ON    THE 

and  nourishment  therefrom,  so  the  believer 
lives  in  Christ,  and  grows  up  into  him;  hut 
to  see  any  allusion  to  a  sudden  dip  into 
the  water  and  out  again,  in  this  passage, 
requires  the  oj^tics  of  one  hent  on  seeing 
immersion,  and  nothing  but  immersion,  all 
through  the  Bible.  But  Mr.  F.  keeps  false 
issues  constantly  before  us.  He  seeks  to 
gain  a  little  favor  to  his  notions,  by  show- 
ing that  there  is  no  resemblance  between 
"planting"  and  "sprinkling."  But  who 
pretends  that  there  is?  His  whole  argu- 
ment goes  on  the  supposition  that  I  am 
trying  to  find  "  sprinkling  "  in  every  pas- 
sage that  he  is  trj-ing  to  press  into  the  sup- 
port of  immersion.  This  is  a  grand  mis- 
take. Most  of  the  passages  he  cites  would 
be  as  badly  tortured  by  making  them 
teach  sprinkling  as  immersion.  The  truth 
is,  they  neither  teach  the  one  nor  the  other. 
Like  the  one  now  before  us,  they  relate  to 
the  newness  of  life  in  which  the  Christian 
walks,  without  any  allusion  to  any  mode 
of  baptism  whatever.  He  quotes  a  passage 
and  shows  that  it  does  not  specifically 
teach  sprinkling,  and  jumps  right  to  the 
conclusion  that  therefore  it  must  teach 
immersion  !  "  Accurate  logician  !  profound 
rcasoner  !"  "  What  light  he  sheds  forth  !" 
XA^II.  His  seventeenth  argument  is 
founded  upon  being  baptized  m  water,  and 
the  body  being  tvashcd  with  water.  He  quotes 
Heb.  X.  22  :  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a 
true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  hay- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  323 

ing  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science, and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water."  I  was  really  surprised  to  find 
Mr.  R  applying  this  passage  to  baptism. 
Why,  my  dear  sirs,  the  gentleman  must 
know  as  well  as  he  knows  any  thing,  that 
it  has  no  kind  of  reference  to  baptism 
whatever.  And  then  to  talk  about  persons 
having  their  "bodies  washed  in  pure  wa- 
t#r,"  after  being  dipped  in  torbid  streams 
and  filthy,  stagnant  ponds,  such  as  are 
sometimes  used,  is  the  hight  of  folly  !  His 
mistake  is  in  literalizing  a  figure.  The 
passage  alhides  to  the  purifications  of  the 
priests  under  the  law,  preparatory  to  en- 
tering into  the  holy  and  most  hol}^  places, 
and  makes  those  purifications  tyj)ical  of 
the  moral  cleansing  of  the  soul  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  There  is  no  allu- 
sion in  it  to  baptism.  Baptism  was  foreign 
to  the  design  and  scope  of  the  passage. 
When  I  talk  about  fulfilling  this  passage, 
by  sprinkling  water,  the  gentleman  may 
spread  oiit  on  the  absurdity  of  washing  the 
body  by  sprinkling.  I  repeat  the  remark, 
and  call  his  attention  to  it,  that  I  deny 
that  the  passage  has  any  allusion  to  bap- 
tism; and  I  challenge  him  to  find  baptism 
in  it  if  he  can.  Is  the  word  wash^  hapfo,  or 
haptizo,  or  equivalent  to  either?  Will  the 
gentleman  dare  say  it  is?  But  if  the  allu- 
sion is  to  the  washing  of  the  priests  under 
the  law,  and  the  aj^plication  to  the  moral 
cleansing  of  the  soul,  what  has  the  passage 


324  DEBATE    ON    THE 

to  do  with  the  subject  of  baptism  ?  JS'oth- 
ing — absolutely  nothing  !  And  this  is  the 
solid  ground  on  which  the  gentleman  says, 
''  we  plant  our  foot !"  As  to  the  expres- 
sion, baptizing  in  iaatei\  I  will  only  remark 
that  if  Mr.  F.  will  venture  to  say  the  prep- 
osition en  does  not,  and  can  not,  have  the 
sense  of  with,  I  will  meet  him  at  that  point, 
and  go  with  him  into  an  investigation  of 
the  authorities.  Our  bodies  are  washed  in 
pure  water  when  "  our  souls  are  bathed  in 
that  ocean  of  love  that  purifies  our  persons, 
and  makes  them  one  with  the  Lord." 

XYIII.  His  eighteenth  argument  is  based 
on  the  baptism  of  sufferings.  I  could  ad- 
mit all  the  gentleman  claims,  in  regard  to 
the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  when 
used  with  reference  to  our  Savior's  suffer- 
ings, without  any  detriment  to  my  position. 
No  man  pretends  that  it  has  the  specific 
sense  of  sprinkle  in  that  place.  In  fact,  it 
is  the  hight  of  absurdity  to  suppose  it  has 
any  reference  to  mode  at  all.  It  was  not 
the  mode  of  his  sufferings  our  Savior  had 
in  mind  when  he  called  them  a  baptism, 
but  their  greatness  and  intensity.  Mr.  P. 
must  agree  that  the  word  is  here  used  in 
its  metaphorical,  and  not  in  its  literal,  sense. 
Then  I  ask  him,  in  all  candor,  to  tell  us 
what  he  expects  to  j)i'ove  by  the  metaphor- 
ical use  of  the  word  ?  I  have  no  disposi- 
tion to  dispute  that  the  allusion  was  to  the 
overwhelm ing  sufferings  of  our  Savior, 
when  he  died  for  our  sins.     This  is  in  per- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  325 

feet  harmony  "with  my  view  of  the  generic 
character  of  the  word.  But  how  does  Mr. 
F.  expect  to  prove,  by  this  passage,  that 
the  word  is  specific,  or,  as  Mr.  Carson  says, 
"strictly  univocal?"  I  do  not  claim  that 
it  ought  to  be  translated  "sprinkle."  I 
claim  that  our  translators  did  right  in  not 
translating  it  at  all.  Then  what  does  all 
the  gentleman's  eloquence  on  the  suffering 
of  Christ  amount  to  ?    Just  nothing  at  all. 

I  scarcely  know  how  to  express  my 
view  of  the  remarks  winch  the  gentleman 
made  about  the  name  of  the  ordinance, 
without  calling  them  extremely  shallow. 
I  said  haptismos  is  the  name  of  the  ordi- 
nance. I  did  not  say  that  was  the  defini- 
tion of  the  word,  nor  that  it  always  relates 
to  the  ordinance,  nor  that  it  should  be 
translated  thus ;  but  the  Savior  calls  the 
ordinance  about  which  we  are  debating, 
hajptism ;  and  every  body  believes  with  me 
that  baptism  is  an  ordinance,  nor  can  Mr. 
Franklin  himself  deny  it.  Then  what  has 
he  been  talking  about?  Nothing  under 
the  sun  !  I  give  hi^i  full  credit  for  great 
proficiency  in  the  science  of  perversion ; 
so  he  need  spend  no  more  time  in  disj)lay- 
ing  his  skill  in  that  direction.  Of  course 
he  is  betrayed  into  it  unconsciously,  but, 
nevertheless,  his  practice  has  made  him  an 
adept. 

But  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  gentle- 
man when  he  asserts  so  roundly  that  the 
word  can   have   nothing  to   do  with   any 


326  DEBATE   ON   THE 

definition  but  one,  and  that  that  one  is  im- 
merse? Does  he  know  more  about  it  than 
all  the  lexicographers,  critics  and  theolo- 
gians of  the  j)resent  and  past  ages?  Has 
lie  become  an  oracle?  Has  he  displayed 
learning  enough  to  justify  us  in  laying 
aside  all  the  authorities  and  taking  his 
ipse  dixet,  or  bare  assertion,  for  our  guide 
in  these  matters?  I  rather  guess  not!  I 
think  we  will  still  require  proof,  even  from 
Mr.  Franklin;  and  if  he  considers  us  im- 
pertinent in  this,  he  must  excuse  us  on  the 
ground  that  we  have  never  learned  to  take 
assertions  instead  of  arguments.  Yes,  Mr. 
P.,  I  call  for  the  proof.  I  can  not  afford 
to  allow  you  to  beg  the  question  in  this 
way.  The  people  want  light.  Instead  of 
spending  your  time  in  making  false  posi- 
tions for  me,  and  beating  at  figments  of 
your  own  brain,  just  go  to  work  and  define 
your  own  position,  and  prove  it,  and  you 
will  get  a  patient  hearing.  You  must  ex- 
cuse me,  sir,  but  I  must  insist  that  you 
stick  to  the  real  issue  before  us,  and  give 
us  a  little  more  proof,  or  a  little  less  boast- 
ing. 

The  gentleman  informs  you  that  we  have 
no  tangible  doctrine ;  that  we  have  no 
well-defined  principles,  or  clear  teaching 
on  the  subject.  He  loves  to  talk  about  our 
converts  not  believing  us,  and  represents 
us  as  spending  all  our  time  in  trying  to 
convince  them  that  baptize  means  nothing 
but   sprinkle,  and  insinuates  that  we   are 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  327 

pliant  enough  to  lyreacli  tliat  immersion  is  not 
baptism,  and  then  to  go  and  immerse  them, 
saying  "I  baptize  you,"  etc.  Now  I  must  be- 
lieve that  the  gentleman  knows  this  is  all 
a  perversion  of  our  doctrine  and  j^ractice. 
He  resorts  to  this  sort  of  witness  against 
his  neighbors  when  lie  feels  sorely  pressed, 
and  is  determined  to  make  an  impression 
at  all  hazards  !  I  shall  not  often  follow 
him  into  these  digressions,  but  I  fear  I 
shall  have  to  expose  him.  As  to  the  charge 
that  there  is  no  agreement  among  Meth- 
odists on  the  subject  of  baptism,  it  is 
decidedly  ridiculous.  In  a  large  body  of 
professed  Christians,  where  there  is  but 
little  agitation  of  a  particular  subject,  it 
m.ay  be  taken  for  granted  that  there  is  both 
agreement  and  contentment;  but  whenever 
you  see  a  man  (or  a  church  or  jyarty)  ever- 
lastingly harping  upon  a  disputed  dogma, 
giving  his  neighbors  no  rest  by  day  or 
night,  you  may  be  assured  that  his  ideas 
are  crude  and  ill-digested,  and  that  he 
is  not  satisded  with  himself  or  anybody 
else.  He  can  only  keep  himself  in  the  no- 
tion he  has  imbibed,  by  continually  argu- 
ing himself  into  it. 

The  gentleman  asks  what  I  have  at- 
tempted to  prove.  AVell,  I  have  attempted 
to  prove  that  hapto  and  baptizo  are  generic 
terms ;  and  consequently  that  my  friend's 
notions  are  un scriptural,  unsatisfactory  and 
absurd.  I  have  also  attempted  to  prove 
that  baptism  is  the  ordained  emblem  of  the 


330  DEBATE    ON    THE 

stead  of  dip.  There  may  be  a  proper  dip 
where  there  can  be  no  immersion.  Some- 
times the  leading  idea  conveyed  by  hapto 
is  dip^  sometimes  it  is  icet^  and  sometimes 
it  is  dye^  and  sometimes  it  is  smear.  Bnt 
Mr.  F.  persists  in  representing  me  as  hold- 
ing that  it  always  means  pour  or  sprinkle, 
and  nothing  else  !  He  seems  to  think  that 
when  he  shows  that  it  does  not  mean  pour 
or  sprinkle,  he  has  triumphantly  proved 
that  it  does  mean  immerse  !  But  the  truth 
is,  he  has  not  met  the  issue  at  all.  He 
makes  light  of  the  idea  of  garments  being 
sprinkled  with  blood!  Why  did  he  not 
remember  the  language  of  Isaiah,  before 
quoted?  He  thinks  the  Prophet  "let 
down  "  the  force  and  dignity  of  the  sub- 
ject, when  he  described  the  conqueror  as 
coming  with  dyed  garments,  and  then  ex- 
23lains  the  matter  by  saying  that  his  rai- 
ment was  stained  by  the  blood  of  his  ene- 
mies being  "  sprinkled  "  upon  them  !  ISTo 
doubt  Mr.  F.  would  have  had  due  regard 
to  the  dignity  of  the  subject,  and  employed 
different  and  more  appropriate  language 
than  Isaiah  did  ! 

The  gentleman  made  out  a  list  of  some 
eight  classes  of  persons,  who  understand 
the  subject  of  baptism  differently.  What 
does  he  expect  to  j^rove  by  this?  Is  it  any 
evidence  that  the  Bible  makes  the  whole 
service  of  Grod  consist  in  having  the  water 
used  in  the  right  form  in  baptism  ?  Is  it 
any  proof  that  haptizo  is  a  specific  term,  and 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  331 

means  nothiDg  but  immerse  ?  Does  he  ex- 
pect to  prove  by  it  that  immersion  is  so 
clearlj^  taught  in  the  Scriptures  that  none 
but  the  blinded  can  fail  to  see  it  ?  He 
says,  "  Now  in  the  midst  of  all  this  con- 
fusion, what  is  to  be  done?"  And  what 
does  he  propose?  Why,  if  we  will  all  just 
yield  our  consciences,  and  come  over  to 
him,  and  take  his  word  and  do  as  he  di- 
rects, we  may  have  union  !  Modest  man  ! 
But  is  it  not  a  little  singular  that  he  can 
stand  up  here  and  insinuate  so  plainly  that 
nobody  but  immersionits  have  any  con- 
science in  the  matter  ?  But  he  is  "  ring- 
ing "  again  on  the  fact  that  everybody  ad- 
mits that  immersion  will  do.  Is  this  any 
proof  of  his  exclusive  proposition  ?  And 
he  still  talks  about  people  being  dissatisfied 
with  sprinkling.  I  rej^eat  that  I  could 
make  as  many  dissatisfied  with  immersion 
as  he  can  with  sprinkling,  by  pursuing  the 
same  course.  But  jDcople  who  are  satisfied 
themselves,  are  generally  satisfied  to  let 
their  neighbors  think  for  themselves.  "  Let 
every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own 
mind,"  is  a  bit  of  advice  that  applies  well 
to  all  questions  of  outward  form,  including 
the  mode  of  baptism.  The  gentleman  asks, 
"How  shall  we  ever  get  rid  of  the  dis- 
pute?" I  answer,  by  taking  the  advice  of 
St.  Paul,  "  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
suaded in  his  own  mind,"  and  by  ceasing 
to  disturb  the  consciences  of  the  young  and 
inexperienced  about  forms  and  luodes. 


332  DEBATE   OiN   THE 

Having  noticed  what  I  deemed  worthy 
of  notice  in  the  gentleman's  speech,  I  will 
proceed  with  further  exam/pies  of  the  use  of 
the  word  haptizo  in  the  Scriptures.  I  call  at- 
tention to  I.  Cor.  X.  1-2  :  "Moreover,  breth- 
ren, I  would  not  have  you  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and  were 
all  baptized  (ehaptisanto')  unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  plain  facts  in 
this  case  are  all  I  want.  It  is  clear,  1st, 
That  there  was  a  real  baptism  of  water — 
they  were  all  baptized.  2nd,  The  baptism 
took  place  while  the  Israelites  were  cross- 
ing the  Bed  Sea.  They  were  baptized  in 
the  Sea.  3rd,  The  cloud  was  employed  as 
the  instrument  of  baptism.  The  cloud  un- 
doubtedly furnished  the  water.  4th,  They 
were  not  immersed  in  the  sea;  for  the  Bible 
says  expressly  that  they  passed  over  "dry- 
shod."  5th,  The  idea  that  the  cloud  came 
down  upon  the  walls  formed  by  the  sea, 
and  formed  an  arch  for  them  to  pass  under, 
is  far-fetched,  forced  and  unsupported  by 
the  least  particle  of  evidence.  This  is 
nothing  but  the  invention  of  some  fruitful 
imagination.  6th,  What  the  cloud  did  is 
clearly  taught  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible. 
I  refer  to  the  Psalm  in  which  the  passage 
over  the  Eed  Sea  is  celebrated  in  sacred 
song.  "  The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the 
waters  saw  thee;  they  were  afraid;  the 
depths  also  were  troubled.  The  clouds 
poured  out  water;  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound ; 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  333 

thine  arrows  also  went  abroad.  The  voice 
of  thy  thunder  was  in  the  heaven;  the 
lightnings  lightened  the  world ;  the  earth 
trembled  and  shook.  Thy  way  is  in  the 
sea,  and  thy  path  in  the  great  waters,  and 
thy  footsteps  are  not  known.  Thou  leadest 
thy  people  like  a  flock,  by  the  hand  of 
Moses  and  Aaron;"  Psalm  Ixxvii.  16-20. 
We  need  have  no  more  dispute  as  to  what 
the  clouds  did.  The  people  were  baptized^ 
but  they  were  not  immersed.  The  word 
here  retains  its  generic  sense,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances prove  that  the  baptism  was  not 
by  immersion. 

I  now  invite  attention  to  the  baptism  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire;  Matthew  iii.  11 : 
"He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire."  This  was  the  prom- 
ise, as  made  by  John  the  Baptist ;  but  we 
have  it  in  the  Savior's  own  words  in  Acts 
i.  5  :  "  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  When  this 
promise  was  fulfilled,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  upon 
thcm^  as  predicted  by  the  prophet  Joel.  My 
argument  is  this  :  The  promise,  "  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  ful- 
filled by  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  same  specific  action  of  the  Spirit  is  called 
a  baptism  and  a,  pouring  out.  I  do  not  say 
the  word  pour,  as  applied  to  the  Spirit, 
means  the  same  precisely  as  baptizo,  in  the 
promise — that  is  not  the  point ;  but  I   do 


332  DEBATE   ON   THE 

HaviDg  noticed  what  I  deemed  worthy 
of  notice  in  the  gentleman's  speech,  I  will 
proceed  with  further  examples  of  the  use  of 
the  word  haptizo  in  the  Scriptures.  I  call  at- 
tention to  I.  Cor.  X.  1-2  :  "Moreover,  breth- 
ren, I  would  not  have  you  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and  were 
all  baptized  (ehaptisanto^  unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  plain  facts  in 
this  case  are  all  I  want.  It  is  clear,  1st, 
That  there  was  a  real  baptism  of  water — 
they  were  all  baptized.  2nd,  The  baptism 
took  place  while  the  Israelites  were  cross- 
ing the  Red  Sea.  They  were  baptized  in 
the  Sea.  3rd,  The  cloud  was  employed  as 
the  instrument  of  baptism.  The  cloud  un- 
doubtedly furnished  the  water.  4tb,  They 
were  not  immersed  in  the  sea;  for  the  Bible 
says  expressly  that  they  passed  over  "dry- 
shod."  5th,  The  idea  that  the  cloud  came 
down  upon  the  walls  formed  by  the  sea, 
and  formed  an  arch  for  them  to  pass  under, 
is  far-fetched,  forced  and  unsupported  by 
the  least  j)article  of  evidence.  This  is 
nothing  but  the  invention  of  some  fruitful 
imagination.  6th,  What  the  cloud  did  is 
clearly  taught  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible. 
I  refer  to  the  Psalm  in  which  the  passage 
over  the  Red  Sea  is  celebrated  in  sacred 
song.  "  The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the 
waters  saw  thee;  they  were  afraid;  the 
depths  also  were  troubled.  The  clouds 
poured  out  water;  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound ; 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  333 

thine  arrows  also  went  abroad.  The  voice 
of  thy  thunder  was  in  the  heaven;  the 
lightnings  lightened  the  world  ;  the  earth 
trembled  and  shook.  Thy  way  is  in  the 
sea,  and  thy  path  in  the  great  waters,  and 
thy  footsteps  are  not  known.  Thou  leadest 
thy  j^eople  like  a  flock,  by  the  hand  of 
Moses  and  Aaron;"  Psalm  Ixxvii.  16-20. 
We  need  have  no  more  dispute  as  to  what 
the  clouds  did.  The  people  were  haptized, 
but  they  were  not  immersed.  The  word 
here  retains  its  generic  sense,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances prove  that  the  baptism  was  not 
by  immersion. 

I  now  invite  attention  to  the  baptism  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire;  Matthew  iii.  11 : 
"He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire."  This  was  the  prom- 
ise, as  made  by  John  the  Baptist ;  but  we 
have  it  in  the  Savior's  own  words  in  Acts 
i.  5  :  "  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  When  this 
promise  was  fulfilled,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, the  Holy  Ghost  was  2>oured  out  npon 
them,  as  predicted  by  the  prophet  Joel.  My 
argument  is  this  :  The  promise,  "  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  ful- 
filled by  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  same  specific  action  of  the  Spirit  is  called 
a  haptism  and  2l  pouring  out.  I  do  not  say 
the  word  'pour,  as  applied  to  the  Spirit, 
means  the  same  precisely  as  haptizo,  in  the 
promise — that  is  not  the  point ;  but  I   do 


334  DEBATE    ON    THE 

say,  and  no  man  can  dispute  the  fact,  that 
the  same  specific  action  of  the  Spirit  is  call-*) 
ed  baptism  and  pouring  out.  The  baptism 
is,  therefore,  by  pouring,  as  certain  as  there 
is  meaning  in  language.  Baptizo  is  the 
generic  term,  and powr  is  the  specific  term, 
which  ex2:)resses  the  mode.  This  fact  will 
never  be  answered.  It  stands  out  upon  the 
sacred  page,  an  everlasting  refutation  of 
my  friend's  exclusive  notions.  His  idea  of 
immersing  in  the  Holy  G-host  is  crude,  un-4 
intelligible  and  leads  to  materialism.  This 
I  will  prove  whenever  he  takes  his  ground 
in  relation  to  it. 

But  there  was  also  a  baptism  hy  fire.  My 
friend  has  already  called  this  up,  and 
ridiculed  the  idea  of  "sprinkling"  in  fire. 
But  what  do  you  suppose  he  believes  in  re- 
gard to  the  promise  of  a  haptism  with  fire? 
I  do  not  wish  to  anticipate  him,  but  I  pre- 
dict that  he  will  tell  you  it  is  the  fire  of 
hell!  This  is  his  position,  for  I  have  it  in 
print.  But  this  promise  was  made  to  the 
very  same  pcrsoiisi^  and  in  conjunction  with 
the  promise  of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit; 
and  it  was  fulfilled  upon  the  same  persons, 
and  at  the  same  time  that  they  were  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost.  "And  there  ap- 
peared unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of 
fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  therti  ;^^  Acts  ii.  3. 
They  were  then  and  there  haptized  with.  iho. 
Holy  Ghost  and  fire.  The  fire  was  the  em- 
blem of  the  Spirit  in  its  miracle-working 
power.     It  was  a  haptism,  but  not   an    im- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  335 

moraion.  It  did  not  overwhelm,  or  envel- 
op their  bodies,  but  it  sat  upon  each  of 
them.  This  is  clear,  plain,  incontrovertible. 
Mr.  F.  may  tax  his  ingenuity  to  escape,  but 
right  here  I  shall  hold  him.  ]^o  j)laying 
upon  the  word  "  sprinkle  "  will  do  him  any 
good.  ^0  dodging  the  issue  can  be  prac- 
ticed here,  l^o  perverting  of  my  position 
is  now  in  the  range  of  possibility. 

He  has  been  calling  upon  me  for  plain 
cases  of  apostolic  practice,  which  were  not 
by  immersion.  I  give  him  the  case  of  the 
three  thousand  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost. In  regard  to  this  case,  I  remark 
that  the  Apostles  neither  had  time  nor  con- 
veniences  for  immersing  this  vast  multitude 
that  day.  Where  did  they  find  the  water  ? 
How  had  they  time  ?  How  came  the  hap- 
tized  by  changes  of  raiment?  Let  the  gen- 
tleman look  at  this  case,  and  show  us  that 
the  baptism  was  by  immersion,  if  he  is  able 
to  do  it.  Let  the  gentleman  try  his  hand 
upon  this  case,  and  I  will  furnish  him 
others  in  due  time.  But  I  must  not  give 
him  too  much  at  once,  as  he  will  want  some 
time  to  patch  up  and  revamp  his  affirma- 
tive arguments,  now  so  torn  and  shattered. 

Xow,  how  stands  the  case?  I  have 
shown  from  the  gentleman's  own  favorite 
critic,  that  hapto,  from  which  haptb:o  is  de- 
rived, is  used  to  signify  dyeing  in  the 
generic  sense,  without  reference  to  mode, 
and  sometimes  with  an  express  allusion  to 
a  mode  different  from  immersion.     I  have 

23 


336  DEBATE   ON   THE 

shown  from  Bible  use  that  it  is  used  in  the 
generic  sense  of  wet^  without  reference  to 
mode ;  and  that  it  is  also  used  in  the 
general  sense  of  smear  or  stain^  and  that 
sometimes  it  refers  to  staining  which  is 
done  by  sprinkling.  I  have  shown  that 
hajptizo  is  not  more  specific  or  restricted  in 
its  import,  but  tells  the  thing  done  without 
defining  the  mode.  Has  my  friend  touch- 
ed this  issue?  Never  !  True,  he  has  blur- 
red over  it,  and  tried  to  ridicule  my  posi- 
tion, but  he  has  never  yet  recognized  the 
ground  I  occupy,  nor  tried  to  meet  it.  He 
goes  on  the  supposition  that  T  am  contend- 
ing that  wherever  either  of  these  words  oc- 
cur, they  mean,  specifically,  to  pour  or 
sprinkle  ;  but  the  audience  will  bear  me 
witness,  that  this  is  a  perversion.  Why 
does  he  sneer  at  my  reference  to  Jewish 
ceremonies?  Is  it  not  because  it  is  too 
clear  to  be  denied,  that  those  Jewish  wash- 
ings called  baptisms  were  not  by  im- 
mersion? But  if  they  were  not,  then  my 
friend  must  for  ever  fail  to  maintain  his  ex- 
clusive proposition.  I  go  to  these  cere- 
monies only  to  find  the  sense  in  which  the 
word  is  used  in  the  Scriptures,  and  I  find 
that  my  position  is  sustained,  and  Mr. 
Franklin's  is  overthrown ;  hence  his  at- 
tempt to  excite  prejudice  against  my  ap- 
peal to  Bible  usage.  But  his  labor  will  be 
vain.  Every  man  of  intelligence  can  see 
the  propriety  of  my  course.  And  every  in- 
telligent hearer  will  appreciate  his  efforts 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  337 

to  divert  attention  from  my  arguments.  I 
stand  before  a  discriminating  public,  and 
appeal  not  to  the  passions  and  prejudices 
of  my  hearers,  but  to  their  understanding 
and  intelligence. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  FIFTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  am  now  ready  to  give  attention  more 
fully  to  the  response  the  worthy  gentleman, 
from  time  to  time,  has  been  making.  1 
shall  not,  therefore,  in  my  last  speech  to- 
night, attempt  much  more  than  a  review  of 
things  already  introduced.  I  could  not  see 
why  Mr.  M.  should  be  so  excited,  in  his 
speech  before  the  one  just  delivered,  in  al- 
luding to  the  correspondence,  in  connection 
with  his  being  so  young !  He  only  had  to 
modify  his  statement  six  years !  In  the 
place  of  my  having  twenty  years  the  advan- 
tage of  him,  as  an  apology  for  his  doing  no 
better,  he  now  falls,  from  his  former  state- 
ment, to  fourteen  years.  A  pretty  liberal 
modification !  Quite  a  falling  off !  l!^ot 
quite  one  third  off!  But  whoever  will  read 
the  correspondence,  will  find  that  a  more 
liberal  modification  than  this  will  have  to 
be  made  before  some  of  his  statements  will 
stand  the  test.  He  denies  the  charge  of  re- 
fusing to  debate  his  practice,  and  demands 
of  me  the  proof  of  it,  or  that  I  retract. 
This,  he  says,  he  does  deliberately.     Well, 


338  DEBATE   ON    THE 

let  lis  look  at  it.  In  the  correspondence,  I 
proposed  to  debate  the  question,  "Is  the 
divine  ordinance  of  the  JSTew  Testament, 
called  baptism^  in  the  common  version,  sprink- 
ling or  pouring?"  He  practices  sprinlding 
and  pouring,  and  calls  it  haj^tism,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  Did  he  refuse  to  debate  this  ? 
He  not  only  refused,  but  admitted  that  the 
mode  (and  sprinkling  and  pouring  he  calls 
modes)  "  is  not  definitely  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures," and  that  baptism  "  is  not  sj^rinkling, 
nor  pouring,  nor  immersion,  as  such,  but 
baptism."  What  was  the  reason,  when  I 
pressed  it  upon  him  in  different  ways,  if  he 
did  not  refuse,  he  did  not  affirm  and  defend 
his  practice  of  sprinMing  for  bajDtism  ?  The 
reason  is,  simply,  that  he  does  not  believe 
that  sprinkling  is  baptism,  as  he  has  de- 
clared in  the  correspondence,  but  does  be- 
lieve that  immersion  is  baptism,  as  he  has 
admitted  in  the  debate.  Many  of  his  breth- 
ren agree  with  him,  that  sprinlding  is  not 
haptism,  and  that  immersion  is  baptism ;  and 
this  is  the  reason  why  the  young  man  is  so 
sensitive  in  reference  to  the  correspondence. 
Every  man  here  can  see  how  fatal  his  ad- 
mission is  to  him.  If  sprinkling  is  not 
baptism,  as  he  has  admitted,  no  man  can 
be  baptized  by  sprinkling.  This  he  feels, 
and  this  his  brethren  feel,  and  this  e;xplains 
the  excitement  and  restlessness  among  his 
friends  when  I  am  speaking.  They  can  not 
endure  it  to  hear  him  admit  that  sprink- 
ling, as  such,  is  not  baptism,  and  that  immer- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  339 

sion  is  baptism,  especially  those  of  them 
whom  he  has  sprinkled,  and  called  it  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

The  worthy  gentleman  demands  of  mo 
some  authority,  written  in  the  first  two 
centuries,  for  immersion.  What  does  he 
want  authority  on. immersion  for?  Has  he 
not  admitted  that  immersion  is  baptism? 
Has  he  not,  in  the  presence  of  some  pres- 
ent, when  about  to  immerse,  called  immer- 
sion baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Lord? 
Did  I  not  offer  to  affirm  that  immersion  is 
baptism,  and  fail  to  induce  him  to  deny  it? 
Does  not  his  own  Discipline,  which  he  al- 
most swore,  in  his  ordination,  he  would  de- 
fend, recognize  immersion  as  baptism  ?  But 
now  he  wants  me  to  quote  a  writer,  of  the 
first  two  centuries,  that  ever  said  any  thing 
about  immersion  for  baptism !  Why,  sir, 
we  are  not  debating  on  immersion.  The 
very  first  definition  of  haptizo  given  in  every 
lexicon  either  he  or  myself  ever  saw,  is 
immerse,  or  some  word  of  the  same  import. 
His  own  Discipline  requires  him  to  im- 
merse, and  he  promised,  in  his  ordination, 
in  the  most  solemn  manner,  to  defend  the 
Discipline.  He  himself  immerses  and  when 
he  does  it,  says,  ^''  I  baptize  you  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  thus  calling  immersion  bap- 
tism, before  Heaven  and  before  the  world. 
But  now,  when  I  press  him  with  the  argu- 
ment, that  there  is  not  a  mention  of  sprink- 
ling or  pouring,  for  baptism,  in  all  that  was 


340  DEBATE    ON    THE 

written  in  the  first  two  centuries,  he  dodges 
the  question,  evades  and  tries  to  shift  the 
responsibility,  by  demanding  authority  for 
that  about  which  we  have  no  debate,  and 
in  which  we  are  both  agreed,  that  immer- 
sion is  baptism  !  Why  call  upon  me  to 
prove  wnat  he  has  not  had  the  nerve  to  de- 
ny, and  what  he  can  not  deny,  without  in- 
validating the  baptism  of  some  of  his  own 
members,  some  of  them  to  whom  he  has  ad- 
ministered the  rite  with  his  own  hands, 
endorsed  by  the  Discipline,  and  it  endorsed 
by  the  Conference  !  Immersion  is  a  part  of 
his  faith  and  practice,  as  well  as  mine,  and 
ho  is  under  as  much  obligation  to  produce 
authority  for  immersion  as  I  am, 

Mr.  M.  certainly  knew  that  I  did  not  aim 
to  demand  of  him  to  produce,  from  the 
writings  of  the  first  two  centuries,  our  Eng- 
lish words  sprinkle  smd  pour.  He  certainly 
knew  that  I  only  demanded  their  equiva- 
lents, or  their  proper  rej^resentatives,  from 
the  originals,  applied  to  baptism.  Did  he 
produce  these,  ever  applied  to  the  ordi- 
nance, from  any  writing  of  the  specified 
period  ?  He  did  not,  and  never  will.  What 
did  he  do  in  this  dilemma?  He  adroitly 
turned  round,  and  wisely  demanded  au- 
thority for  immersion  !  which  he  himself 
professes  to  believe  in  and  practices  ?  My 
sixth  argument,  then,  founded  upon  the 
fact  that  sprinkling  or  pouring,  or  their 
Greek  representatives,  are  not  mentioned 
for  baptism  in  the  first  two   centuries,  re- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  341 

mains  untouched  and  invulnerable.  His 
practice  of  sprinkliug  or  pouring  for  bap- 
tism, is  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  or  any- 
book  written  in  the  first  two  centuries. 
The  simple  reason  why  this  dispute  is  un- 
known to  the  writings  of  this  important 
period,  as  Mr.  M.  admits,  is  because  there 
was  no  such  dispute.  There  was,  at  that 
time,  but  one  way  of  baptizing,  and,  conse- 
quently, no  dispute  about  it.  There  was 
but  one  practice.  They  baptized  or  im- 
mersed, and  did  nothing  else  for  baptism. 
ISTothing  was  said  against  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  nor  against  penance  and  indul- 
gences, all  for  the  same  reason,  viz.,  that 
these  innovations  had  not  come  into  exist- 
ence. 

The  worthy  gentleman  tells  you  that  I 
deny  the  authority  of  my  "  own  favorite 
critic!"  I  should  like  to  know  when  this 
denial  was  made.  Certainly  no  one  in  this 
assembly  knows  any  thing  about  it.  It  has 
no  existence,  except  in  the  imagination  of. 
the  gentleman.  What  dispute  have  we 
had  on  the  question,  whether  the  primary 
meaning  of  words  is  always  the  proper 
meaning  ?  This  is  no  question  in  our  con- 
troversy. His  long  quotation  from  Carson 
touched  no  issue  made  by .  me.  I  under- 
stand my  friend.  He  first  talks  about  Mr. 
Campbell,  then  Carson,  and  then  starts  the 
question,  whether  the  primary  meaning  of 
words  is  always  the  proper  meaning.  This 
serves  the   double  purpose  of  making    a 


!i42  DEBATE    ON    THE 

show  of  having  read  Campbell  and  Carson, 
and  filling  uj)  time.  Probably  he  thought, 
too,  that  it  would  serve  a  third  purpose, 
viz.,  to  decoy  me  from  my  intended  course; 
but  what  has  all  this  to  do  in  answering 
my  arguments?  Nothing  under  the  sun, 
except  it  be  to  create  a  little  fog  in  which 
to  try  to  hide.  There  is  not  a  man  here 
can  see  how  it  can  be  answering  any  argu- 
ment advanced  by  me.  But  there  is  one 
thing  that  every  person  who  keeps  his  own 
conscience  can  see,  and  that  is,  that  if  bap- 
tism is  simply  "the  proper  name  of  the  or- 
dinance," as  Mr.  M.  mainlains,  he  has  noth- 
ing in  the  Avorld  to  do  with  the  meaning  of 
the  word  haptizo^  no  matter  whether  it  be 
primary  or  secondary.  I  should  be  happy 
to  see  him  get  enough  clear  light  to  define 
his  position  and  stick  to  it,  so  that  I  may 
know  where  to  find  him.  But  the  true 
state  of  the  case  is,  that,  with  him,  haptizo 
is  such  a  wonderful  word  that  it  can  not  be 
defined !  He  can  not  tell  what  it  does 
mean  !  It  can  not  be  translated  except  by 
a  circumlocution  !  When  I  call  on  him  for 
a  translation,  even  by  a  circumlocution,  he 
fails  to  give  one.  When  he  is  at  one  angle, 
he  reasons  as  if  he  believed  it  to  be  simj^ly 
the  proj)er  name  of  the  ordinance,  expres- 
sing nothing  of  the  manner  of  administer- 
ing it.  Then  he  is  round  at  another  angle, 
talking  about  ^ri7?ia»3^  and  secondary  mean- 
ings of  haptizo.  ]N"ow,  if  he  can  get  far 
enough  out  of  the   fog  to   see   one    point 


ACTION    OP   BAPl'lSM,  343 

clearly,  I  should  like  to  have  him  stand 
some  place  decisively.  Can  he,  then,  tell 
lis  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the  mean- 
ing of  bapiizo  from  which  we  can  learn 
any  thing  about  what  the  Apostles  did 
when  they  baptized  ?  Has  that  word  any 
such  meaning  as  sprinhle^pour  or  immerse  in 
it?  or  has  it  all  three  of  these  meanings?  or 
is  it  simply  the  proper  name  of  the  ordi- 
nance, having  none  of  these  meanings  in 
it?  When  haptizo  is  used  in  reference  to 
the  rite,  does  it  express  any  thing  about 
what  action  is  to  be  performed.  ]!:^ow  let 
the  gentleman  come  out  and  tell  us  where 
he  stands,  and  stand  there,  and  not  talk  at 
times  as  if  he  thought  the  term  generic^  as 
he  wishes  me  to  express  it,  and  then,  at 
other  times,  as  if  he  thought  it  specific.  To 
use  his  own  illustration,  borrowed,  I  be- 
lieve, from  Dr.  ]J»r.  L.  Eice,  the  word  officer 
does  not  contain  any  meaning,  in  itself, 
from  which  we  could  determine  whether 
the  officer  referred  to  was  captain,  colonel 
or  general.  No  criticism  in  this  universe 
could  ever  determine,  from  the  word  officer , 
what  office  the  man  called  officer  held  ;  and 
he  would  be  doubly  stupid  who  would  try 
to  determine  what  office  was  meant  by  talk- 
ing of  the  primary  and  secondary  meaning 
of  the  word  officer.  In  precisely  the  same 
way,  if  haptizo  means  simply  the  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance,  all  talk  about  pri- 
mary and  secondary  meanings  is  mere 
moon-shine,    or    even    poorer    light  than 


344  DEBATE   ON    THE 

moon-shine.  But  if  haptizo  means  sprinkle^ 
pour  or  immerse^  or  all  three  of  these,  it  is 
not  the  proper  name  of  the  ordinance,  and 
we  have  to  deal  with  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  If  he  has  any  position  touching 
this  point,  let  him  stand  out  in  clear  day- 
light and  take  his  position. 

What  does  it  avail  for  the  worthy  gentle- 
man to  go  to  the  Apocrapha,  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  the  Jewish  baptism  of  cups  and  beds, 
professing  not  to  use  his  favorite  word, 
*'  pretending  "  to  find  the  meaning  of  hap- 
tizo? It  was  not  the  proper  meaning  of 
this  word  he  was  in  search  of  here,  nor  in 
any  other  place  to  which  he  has  referred. 
The  proper  meaning  of  the  word  is  precise- 
ly what  he  dreaded,  and  aimed  to  avoid, 
when  he  said  it  was  the  proper  name  of  an 
ordinance,  li  haptizo  is  used  simply  as  the 
proper  name  of  the  ordinance,  it  does  not 
express  the  action  ;  but  if  it  expresses  ac- 
tion, then  it  is  not  the  name  of  the  ordi- 
nance. In  one  case  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  meaning  of  the  word  ;  in  the  other 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance.  In  other  words,  as 
I  claim  that  the  word  haptizo  is  no  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance,  but  expresses  one 
action  and  nothing  else,  I  have  a  right  to 
go  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  to 
find  what  that  action  is,  and  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  use  of  it ;  but  as  Mr.  M.  main- 
tains that  it  is  simply  the  proper  name  of 
the  ordinance,  he  has  nothing  to  do   with 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  345 

the  meaniDg  of  the  word.  He  denies,  if  I 
understand  him,  that  haptizo  expresses  the 
action,  or  describes  any  thinpr  of  what  is  to 
be  done,  in  administering  the  ordinance. 
In  doing  this,  he  cuts  himself  off  from  find- 
ing any  sprinkling  or  pouring  in  the  word. 
This  he  thinks  he  can  well  afford  to  do,  if 
he  can  cut  me  off  from  finding  immersion 
in  it.  This  he  can  never  escape  by  any  of 
his  undignified,  unkind  and  undeserved  re- 
marks about  "  wise  looks,"  "  putting  on 
airs,"  etc.,  etc. 

My  twelfth  argument,  the  gentleman  in- 
formed you,  in  one  of  his  speeches,  is 
founded  not  upon  the  meaning  but  upon 
the  sound  of  certain  words  and  phrases; 
such,  for  instance,  as  "  they  went  down 
into  the  water,"  "came  up  out  of  the 
water"  and  "were  baptized  in  the  river  of 
Jordan."  He  says,  "  It  is  true,  that  the 
custom  of  modern  immersionists,  of  repair- 
ing to  rivers,  streams,  and  ponds,  of  one 
kind  or  another,  for  the  purpose  of  immer- 
sing, has  fixed  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
of  this  generation,  a  certain  way  of  associ- 
ating the  idea  of  immersion  with  the 
phraseology  in  the  passages  read  to  you  by 
Mr.  F."  I  think  the  gentlemen  is  nearer 
right  in  this  statement  than  any  thing  he 
has  said  on  the  subject.  That  idea  is  cer- 
tainly '•'-fixed  in  the  minds  of  the  people  of  this 
generation^''  SO  that  no  sophistry  or  caviling 
of  any  sort,  can  unfix  it  in  their  minds.  I 
think  not  the  sound  b»t  the  meaning  of  such 


346  DEBATE   ON   THE 

passages  as  read  by  me,  has  unmistakably 
fixed  that  idea  in  their  minds,  and  I  am 
not  altogether  without  hope  that  the  same 
idea  may  be  fixed  yet  in  the  mind  of  the 
worthy  gentleman.  Pray,  tell  us,  what 
does  the  expression,  "  they  went  down  into 
the  water,"  mean?  I  do  not  ask  what  the 
sound  is — the  mere  jingle  of  words — but 
what  the  meaning  is.  Did  he  attempt  to 
show  you  that  I  had  mistaken  the  mean- 
ing? or  that  I  had  assumed  a  wrong  mean- 
ing? He  did  not.  Did  he  venture  to  tell 
you  that  eis  is  wrongly  translated  "  into," 
here  ?  He  did  not.  Did  he  venture  to  tell 
you  that  -eh  is  wrongly  translated,  in  the 
phrase,  "  came  up  out  of  the  water?"  He 
did  not.  Did  he  tell  you  that  there  was 
any  thing  wrong  in  the  phrase,  *' baptized 
in  the  river  of  Jordan  ?"  Thanks  to  heav- 
en, he  did  not.  His  conscience  was  too 
strong  to  allow  it.  His  learning  too  accu- 
rate, his  judgment  too  good.  He  would 
not — he  could  not  so  prostrate  his  reason, 
as  to  call  in  question  the  translation  in 
any  one  of  the  phrases,  "  went  down  into 
the  water,"  "  came  up  out  of  the  water,"  or 
"  baptized  in  the  river." 

What,  then,  is  the  obvious  meaning^  but 
not  merely  the  sound,  of  these  expressions  ? 
I  demand  of  Mr.  M.,  for  whom  I  entertain 
none  but  the  kindest  feelings,  if  he  thinks 
the  people  of  this  generation  are  lead  by  the 
sound  and  not  the  sense^  what  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the   words,  "went   down   into   the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  347 

water?"  What  did  they  do^  when  "they 
went  down  into  the  water?"  What  did 
they  do  when  they  "  came  up  out  of  the 
water?"  What  did  they  do  when  they 
"  baptized  in  tlie  river,"  or  waters  of  Jor- 
dan ?  What  did  our  Lord  do  when  "  he 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water?" 
We  not  only  have  the  expression  "  went 
into  the  water,"  but  "  went  down  into  the 
water;"  and  not  only  "came  out  of  the 
water,"  but  "  came  up  out  of  the  water  ;" 
and  not  "  baptized  at  the  water,"  but  "  in 
the  river,"  or  water.  AVhat  does  this  mean? 
What  shall  we  think  this  means  when  we 
shall  stand  in  the  presence  of  Grod  in  the 
last  judgment !  Did  they  not  wade  down 
into  the  water?  Did  I  mistake  the  sound 
for  the  se7ise,  when  I  thought  it  meant,  that 
they  waded  down  into  the  water?  Does 
Mr.  M.  solemnly  think  before  G-od,  that  I 
mistook  the  sound  for  the  meaning,  or  that 
I  was  about  to  lead  this  audience  to  take 
the  sound  for  the  meaning,  in  claiming 
that  it  means,  that  they  waded  down  into  the 
water.  Has  he  not  seen  his  own  converts, 
or  those  of  his  brethren,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  expressions,  "  went  down  into 
the  water"  and  "  came  up  out  of  the  water," 
wade  into  the  icater  and  then  have  water 
sprinkled  upon  them  ?  He  no  doubt  has. 
Does  he  believe  in  his  heart  that  I  mistook 
the  sound  for  the  sense  of  the  words  "came 
2ip  out  of  the  water?"  If  he  does,  let  him 
tell  us  what  these  words  mean.     Does  he 


348  DEBATE   ON   THE 

think  I  took  the  sound  for  the  sense,  of  the 
words,  "baptized  m  water."  Why  was  he 
then,  so  cautious,  as  not  to  tell  us  precise- 
ly what  this  expression  means  ?  Why  did 
he  simply  challenge  me  to  prove  what  was 
self-evident,  and  fail  to  deny  squarely  and 
directly  any  position  I  had  taken  ?  Why 
did  he  not  show  that  I  had  mistaken  the 
meaning  of  these  expressions  ?  or  why  did 
he  not  inform  us  what  they  do  mean  ?  For 
the  best  reason  in  the  world,  viz.,  if  they 
do  not  have  the  obvious  meaning  which  he 
saw  you  would  give  them,  no  man  living 
can  tell  any  thing  about  what  they  mean. 
The  worthy  gentleman  tells  us  that  he 
"honestly  doubts  that  Jesus  was  immersed!" 
He  finds  not  the  least  proof  that  he  was 
immersed  !  I  am  not  to  examine  the  hon- 
esty  of  the  worthy  gentleman.  The  Lord 
knows  us  both.  He  knows  all  about  our 
honesty.  I  touch  not  that  part  of  the  sub- 
ject. But  I  ask  him,  since  he  doubts  whe- 
ther Jesus  was  immersed,  if  he  does  not  know 
that  the  word  of  Grod  says,  "  he  was  bap- 
tized in  Jordon?"  and  that  he  ^'- went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  loater  V  This  he  be- 
lieves unquestionably.  Does  he  not  know 
that  Jesus  was  not  sprinkled  in  Jordan? 
Does  he  not  know  that  he  was  not  poured 
in  Jordon?  This  was  impossible,  to  say 
nothing  of  his  having  "  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  ivater.''  What  reason  does 
he  give  for  doubting  that  Jesus  was  im- 
mersed ?    Nothing  certainly  that  can   an- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  349 

swer  the  demands  of  any  reasonable  con- 
science. The  last  I  saw  of  him,  as  he  left 
the  Lord  coming  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water,  he  was  disappearing  among 
the  Jewish  types,  the  washing  of  cups, 
couches  and  tables,  with  the  purifica- 
tions under  the  law,  with  a  mixture 
of  the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer  and  other  in- 
gredients as  prescribed  by  Moses  and  not 
by  Jesus  ;  the  law  and  not  the  gospel ;  the 
letter  and  not  the  spirit.  He  learns  what 
the  substance  is  from  the  type,  what  the  re- 
ality is  from  the  shadow,  and  what  the  spir- 
it is  from  the  letter.  He  would  prefer  any 
place  to  find  how  the  Apostles  and  first 
preachers  of  Christ  baptized,  to  a  close  and 
careful  analysis  of  the  jDlain  examples  of 
the  Xew  Testament.  But  what  ground  did 
he  give  for  his  doubts  that  Jesus  was  im- 
mersed? He,  like  most  doubting  men, 
stated  no  ground  for  his  doubts,  nor  do  I 
believe  he  can.  He  can  not  tell  how  he 
could  have  been  sprinkled  in  Jordan,  nor 
why  he  should  have  "went  up  straightway  owi 
of  the  water ^'  if  he  had  only  been  sprinkled. 
How  water  could  have  been  sprinkled  upon 
him,  as  the  Discipline  expresses  it,  or  how 
he  could  have  been  immersed  in  the  rivei-,  is 
all  plain  enough  ;  but  the  idea  of  sjjrinkling 
a  person  is  a  pretty  great  stretch  of  the  fig- 
urative, and  sprinkling  a  person  in  a  inver  is 
out  of  the  question.  The  expression,  "they 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water," 
could  not  be  any  part  of  the  history  of  a 


350  DEBATE    ON    THE 

case  of  sprinkling.  But  I  leave  him  on  this 
point,  for  the  jDresent,  not  believing  that 
there  is  any  danger  of  his  doubts  spreading 
much  in  this  community. 

In  his  doubts,  he  has  fallen  into  another 
trouble.  John  could  not  have  immersed 
such  vast  multitudes !  It  is  astonishing 
what  trouble  some  men  will  take  upon 
themselves.  When  men  are  misled  by  re- 
ligious training,  they  will  find  difiiculties 
that  even  children  would  laugh  at  in  after 
ages.  It  is  the  easiest  thing  imaginable  for 
a  man  to  conclude  that  the  number  baptized 
by  John,  was  at  least  seven-fold  greater 
than  it  was.  Then,  how  easy  to  conclude 
that  he  did  it  all  Avith  his  own  hands,  for 
which  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence, 
and  thus  make  an  imjDossibility  of  it.  But 
this  is  not  reasoning,  nor  arguing,  but  manu- 
facturing doubts.  It  serves  that  end  and 
no  other. 

What  response  did  the  gentleman  make 
to  the  argument  drawn  from  the  statement, 
that  John  "  baptized  in  Enon,  near  Salim, 
because  there  was  much  water  there  f  He 
approached  it  very  cautiously,  asking  if  I 
would  deny  that  tlie  original  from  which 
we  have  "  much  water,"  meant  "  many  wa- 
ters." What  if  I  should  not  deny  it,  and  ad- 
mit that  he  was  baptizing  in  Enon  because 
there  were  many  waters  there  ?  What  good 
would  it  do  him  ?  The  historian  aims  to 
give  a  reason  for  baj)tizing  there,  and  his 
reason  is  because  there   was   much  water 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  351 

there.  Would  the  statement,  "  there  were 
many  loatcrs  there,"  be  any  reason  for  sprinh- 
ling  or  ijouring  there  ?  Mr.  M.  does  not  need 
"much  water,"  nor  "many  waters,"  when 
he  sj^rinkles  or  pours ;  he,  therefore,  does 
not  sprinkle  in  Enon,  near  Salim,  because 
there  is  "  much  water  "  or  "  many  waters 
there."  He  has  no  use  for  "  much  water," 
nor  "  many  waters,"  but  I  do  baptize  in  the 
Ohio  river  because  there  is  much  water 
there.  The  passage  does  not  say  that  John 
resorted  to  this  place  because  there  was 
much  water  there,  or  that  he  preached  at 
this  place  because  there  was  much  water 
there,  but  that  he  was  haptizing  in  Enon, 
near  Salim,  because  there  loas  much  tvater 
there. 

Mr.  M.  thinks  the  three  thousand  could 
not  have  been  immersed  on  theday  of  Pen- 
tecost. Immersion  is  a  monstrous  thing 
with  the  worthy  gentleman  ;  it  has  nothing 
but  an  interminable  series  of  difficulties  in 
his  mind.  I  have  sympathized  with  him 
and  his  brethren  many  times  in  these  trou- 
bles. At  one  time,  they  are  in  trouble  how 
such  vast  multitudes  could  have  been  im- 
mersed. Then  they  are  in  trouble  about 
the  sandy  deserts,  where  they  imagine  al- 
most innumerable  inhabitants  living  thou- 
sands of  miles  from  water.  Again,  they 
are  in  distress  about  hosts  of  people  in  the 
Arctic  regions  among  the  interminable  ice, 
where  no  water  could  be  had  to  immerse. 
Then  that  little  water  that  Philip  and  the 

24 


352  DEBATE   ON   THE 

eunuch  came  to,  where  there  was  not  water 
sufficient,  as  one  man  said,  to  immerse  a 
duck.  Again,  some  poor,  dear,  delicate  man 
can  not  go  into  the  water  and  immerse,  with- 
out the  most  imminent  danger  of  losing 
his  life  !  They  seem  to  have  worked  them- 
selves into  such  a  perfect  horror  of  immer- 
sion that  a  good  man  can  but  pity  them,  es- 
pecially when  they  can  not  get  their  own 
members  to  believe  them.  It  never  enters 
into  their  minds,  when  they  are  talking 
about  the  difficulty  of  immersing  the  three 
thousand  in  one  day,  that  no  more  time  is 
consumed  in  immersing  than  in  sprinkling. 
I  was  once  present  when  a  Baptist  preach- 
er immersed  quite  a  number,  and  a  gentle- 
man was  standing  by,  who  was  a  member 
of  no  church,  who  noticed  the  time,  calling 
my  attention  to  his  watch,  as  I  stood  by 
him,  and  it  was  found  that  he  baptized 
about  two  in  a  minute.  ISTow  let  the  gen- 
tleman take  into  the  account  the  customs 
of  Jews — their  rude  manner  of  living; 
camping  in  tents,  sleeping  upon  the  ground ; 
their  rough  apparel  and  habits  of  bathing; 
and  that  they  would  think  nothing  of  being 
Immersed  and  going  with  their  wet  clothes 
on  till  they  would  dry.  Such  people  as 
these  did  not  have  the  same  horror  of  wa- 
ter as  my  friend,  nor  did  they  need  or  have 
the  preparation  of  robes  and  other  equip- 
age as  the  people  think  they  must  have  now. 
Suppose,  then,  that  nobody  baptized  but 
the  Apostles,  how  long  would  it  have  taken 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  353 

twelve  men,  sti'ong,  hard}"  men,  fishermen, 
used  to  the  water,  to  immerse  three  thou- 
sand people,  such  as  I  have  described  ?  Al- 
low each  man  only  to  baptize  two  in  a  min- 
ute, and  any  boy  here,  that  has  only  learn- 
ed the  first  rules  of  arithmetic,  will  tell 
you  that  the  baptizing  could  all  have  been 
done  in  less  than  three  hours. 

]S"o  man  not  misled  by  the  blinding  influ- 
ence of  a  false  system  w^ould  ever  think  of 
such  a  thing  as  even  making  it  at  all  unrea- 
sonable for  twelve  men  to  immerse  three 
thousand  people  in  the  time  they  had — ■ 
probably  six  or  eight  hours.  I  pity  the 
man  wedded  to  the  system  depending  upon 
such  subterfuges  for  its  defense.  Such  men 
are  not  conscious  how  miserably  weak  and 
manifestly  futile  and  little  all  such  subter- 
fuges must  appear  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  en- 
lightened arising  all  around  us.  How  must 
it  look  to  an  ordinary  school-boy,  who  has 
had  but  a  glance  at  a  common  school  atlas, 
and  who  knows  that  there  is  plenty  of 
water  in  any  little  creek  in  three  miles  of 
the  very  head  spring  of  it  to  immerse 
any  number  of  people,  to  see  a  preacher  of 
the  gospel  trying  to  make  it  appear  that 
there  was  not  water  in  the  small  river  call- 
ed a  "  certain  water,"  to  which  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  came,  sufiicient  to  immerse  a 
man  !  How  preposterous  and  ridiculous  it 
will  appear  to  those  who  shall  live  fifty 
years  from  now,  to  hear  it  said  that  preach- 
ers of  former  times,  in  their  opposition  to 


354  DEBATE    ON   THE 

immersion,  used  to  tell  of  people  living  in 
deserts,  where  there  was  no  water  to  im- 
merse !  of  their  living  in  the  frozen  regions 
of  the  ISTorth,  where  water  to  immerse 
could  not  be  had!  The  time  will  soon 
come  when  they  will  hardly  believe  that 
such  weak  things  were  ever  introduced 
gravely  in  argument.  I  am  truly  sorry 
that  Mr.  M.  is  willing  to  allow  his  name  to 
go  upon  the  list,  introducing  such  manifest- 
ly futile  objections  to  the  obvious  practice 
of  the  holy  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ.  Still, 
every  man  must  make  his  election,  and  en- 
ter his  name  upon  the  list  w^here  he  thinks 
proper,  and  prej^are  for  the  consequences. 
This  one  thing,  however,  he  may  depend 
upon,  viz.,  that  he  can  never  make  even 
his  own  converts  believe  that  he  is  right. 
They  have  no  confidence  in  such  logic,  and 
will  be  constantly  forsaking  him  who  uses 
it.  They  know  it  will  not  do  to  lean  upon 
in  the  great  and  solemn  matters  of  religion. 
In  their  more  solemn  moments,  they  will 
say  to  themselves,  "  These  miserable  sub- 
terfuges are  all  nothing.  The  Lord  was 
baptized  in  Jordan,  and  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  icater.  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
went  down  into  the  water,  and  he  baptized 
him,  and  they  came  up  out  of  the  water; 
they  were  buried  in  baptism,  and  baptized  in 
certain  places,  because  there  was  micch 
water  there,  all  of  which  is  incompatible 
with  any  practice  but  immersion.  Besides, 
those   immersed   are    satisfied,    and    their 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  355     ' 

mitid  is  at  rest  on  the  subject.  They  do 
not  wish  to  be  sprinkled  or  poured  upon. 
I  know  I  am  not  satisfied.  I  can  not  satisfy 
myself.  I  must  go  down  into  the  water,  be 
baptized  in  the  water,  and  come  up  out  of 
the  water."  I  say,  in  their  more  solemn 
moments,  they  will  thus  reason ;  they  can 
not  avoid  it.  The  more  intelligent,  the 
greater  the  difficulty  to  satisfy  themselves. 
They  will  go  further  ;  they  will  say,  "  Bro. 
Merrill  admits  that  immersion  is  baptism, 
immerses  himself,  lifts  his  hand  to  heaven, 
when  about  to  immerse,  and  call^  it  hap- 
tism,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  and  our  Dis- 
ciiDlino  recognizes  immersion  as  baptism ;  I 
must,  therefore,  be  immersed." 

The  worthy  gentleman  knows  the  trouble 
he  has  to  pacify  his  own  members,  and 
quiet  their  consciences,  not  the  more  weak 
and  unenlightened,  nor  the  more  cold  and 
indifferent,  but  as  well-informed,  pious  and 
devoted  as  any,  are  found  in  these  troubles. 
Why,  then,  continue  a  practice  in  doubt,  in 
dispute  and  uncertainty,  involving  so  many 
sincere  and  honest  souls  in  trouble  and 
doubt,  when  he  could  j^ractice  that  which 
has  never  been  in  doubt  and  uncertainty. 
Immersion  has  never  been  in  doubt  and 
uncertainty.  Those  immersed  are  satisfied 
about  their  baptism,  and  have  no  doubts 
about  it.  If  we  could  see  the  number  w4io 
have  been  distressed  about  their  baptism, 
who  have  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon, 
hear  their  conversp-tions  with  their  preach- 


35-6  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ers  and  their  fellow  chiirch -members,  and 
know  the  anxiety  and  solicitude  they  have 
had  about  it,  the  number  of  times  they 
have  j)i'ayed  for  relief,  the  number  of  them 
never  satisfied  till  the  day  of  their  death, 
nor  when  dying,  then  we  could  make  some 
estimate  of  the  ruinous  practice  of  sprink- 
ling and  pouring  for  baptism.  If  we  could 
Bee  the  number  now  in  the  eternal  world, 
who  never  were  satisfied  with  their  sprink- 
ling and  pouring,  not  even  when  dying,  we 
could  begin  to  realize  the  iinhappiness  oc- 
casioned by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and 
all  without  a  solitary  reason ;  for  the 
preachers  themselves  admit  that  immersion 
is  baptism.  What  apology  can  there  be  for 
a  doubtful  practice,  when  we  can  have  one 
without  doubt  ?  I  w^ould  advise  every  pre- 
cious soul  who  hears  me  this  night,  and  ex- 
hort you,  if  I  were  making  the  last  speech 
I  ever  expected  to  make,  not  to  receive  the 
doubtful,  but  that  about  which  there  is  no 
doubt.  Be  solemnly  immersed,  and  all 
will  admit  that  you  are  baptized. 


MR.  MERRIIl'S  FIFTH  REPIY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

Without  attempting  to  reply  to  the  ex- 
hortation with  which  the  gentleman  filled 
up  his  time,  1  will  call  your  attention  to 
several  point*  wherein  he  has  misappre- 
hended my  position,  and^  put  constructions 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  357 

upon  my  language  which  I  never  intended, 
and  which  can  be  regarded  in  no  other 
light  than  perversions. 

In  regard  to  the  "  correspondence,"  you 
have  all  observed  my  perfect  satisfaction 
with  that,  and  the  disposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman to  manufacture  some  capital,  by 
fixing  upon  it  a  gloss  of  his  own  ;  but  it  is 
already  before  the  public,  and  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  let  the  people  compare 
the  statements  of  Mr.  Franklin  with  the 
correspondence.  I  know  they  will  find  the 
gentleman  entirely  unsupported.  But  he 
thinks  there  is  quite  a  "  falling  off"  in  my 
calculation  as  to  his  age.  Well,  if  he  has 
reported  himself  correctly,  I  feel  no  dispo- 
sition to  contend,  as  it  was  a  mere  inciden- 
tal remark  that  called  it  up.  The  ridicu- 
lous use  the  gentleman  has  made  of  the  re- 
mark needs  no  further  exposure. 

But  he  said  I  declared  in  the  corres- 
pondence that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism. 
1  never  declared  any  such  thing!  The 
gentleman  exceeds  all  men  I  have  ever 
seen  in  taking  a  wrong  view  of  the  lan- 
guage of  an  opponent,  but  he  can  not  sus- 
tain himself  at  this  point.  I  do  not  intend 
to  charge  him  with  intentional  perversions  ; 
I  attribute  it  to  the  influence  of  his  zeal  for 
his  favorite  hobby.  But  I  can  not,  in  jus- 
tice to  myself,  allow  his  representations  to 
pass  for  my  positions.  I  said  that  the  or- 
dinance which  he  calls  initiatory^  was  not 
sprinkling,  as  such.     This  is  the    ground, 


358  DEBATE    ON   THE 

and  all  the  ground,  he  has  for  saying  I 
admit  that  sj)i'ii^kling  is  not  baptism.  This, 
you  perceive,  is  far  different  from  saying 
that  baptism  may  not  be  performed  by 
sprinkling.  One  of  the  gross  errors  of  the 
gentleman's  theory  is,  that  immersion,  as 
such,  is  baptism.  And  yet,  strangely 
enough,  he  admits  that  there  may  be  an 
immersion  where  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
is  not !  If  sprinkling,  as  such,  were  bap- 
tism, wherever  a  sprinkling  occurred,  there 
would  be  a  baptism.  This  I  do  not  believe ; 
and  I  think  my  friend  himself  will  admit 
that  an  immersion  can  occur  when  there  is 
no  baptism.     Will  he  not  ? 

He  is  also  wide  of  the  mark  in  represent- 
ing my  statement  in  regard  to  the  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance.  I  said  that  hai^tis- 
mos  is  the  proper  name  of  the  ordinance.  I 
still  say  it,  and  I  doubt  whether  Mr.  F. 
will  deny  it.  But  he  says  I  said  that  haptizo 
is  simply  the  name  of  the  ordinance  !  He 
puts  the  word  "  simply  "  into  my  moutli, 
and  adroitly  substitutes  the  verb  for  the 
noun — representing  me  as  calling  a  verb 
the  name  of  an  ordinance !  Then  he  would 
have  you  think  I  wished  to  define  the  word, 
"the  name  of  an  ordinance  !"  What  shall 
I  say  of  such  representations?  I  think  I 
will  just  let  you  form  your  own  opinions 
in  regard  to  the  matter.  Truly  he  has 
made  a  wonderful  discovery  when  he  tells 
you  that  if  haptizo  expresses  an  action,  it 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  name  of  an  or- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  359 

dinance !  But  what  of  haptismosf  Does 
the  noun  express  an  action  ? 

Another  mistake  which,  but  for  his  em- 
barrassing position,  I  would  consider  inex- 
cusable, was  with  reference  to  the  sound  of 
certain  words  and  phrases,  leading  people 
to  associate  the  idea  of  immersion  with 
certain  passages  of  Scripture.  I  ascribed 
the  habit  of  association,  fixed  in  the  minds 
of  the  people  of  this  generation,  neither  to 
the  sound  nor  to  the  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
ture language,  but  to  the  custom  of  immer- 
sionisis !  Surely  I  was  not  ambiguous,  and 
think  I  was  not  misunderstood  to  any- 
great  extent.  It  is  the  sound  of  these 
words,  in  connection  with  the  habit  of  as- 
sociation, which  habit  has  grown  out  of 
the  custom  of  modern  Immersionists,  that 
Mr.  F.  relies  upon  to  su^^port  his  position. 
These  examples  of  the  gentleman's  inaccu- 
racy in  representing  my  language,  are  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  it  will  not  do  to  take 
his  i2)se  dixit,  where  the  position  of  an 
opponent  is  concerned.  A  little  more  cau- 
tion, with  a  little  less  dogmatism,  would  do 
honor  to  the  intelligence  and  candor  of  my 
worthy  antagonist. 

One  more  remark  :  The  gentleman  in- 
sinuates that  there  is  a  terrible  restlessness 
among  my  friends  while  he  is  speaking. 
Does  he  expect  that  in  this  vast  assembly 
there  will  be  no  restlessness,  during  our 
two-hour  sessions,  situated  as  this  congre- 
gation is  ?    And  how  does  he  know  that 


360  DEBATE    ON   THE 

those  who  have  seen  fit  to  retire,  while  he 
was  speaking,  were  my  friends  ?  In  fact, 
I  do  not  know  it  myself.  It  may  be  that 
somebody  who  is  not  particularly  favorable 
to  either  of  us,  has  become  a  little  disgusted. 
At  any  rate,  I  see  no  reason  why  the  gen- 
tleman should  fly  into  a  rage  and  throw 
angry  flouts  at  the  congregation.  My 
friends  will  give  him  a  patient  hearing  as 
long  as  he  will  give  the  subject  a  respect- 
ful consideration. 

The  gentleman  gives  a  strange  turn  to 
my  demand  for  his  authority  for  asserting 
so  roundly  that  nothing  but  immersion  was 
practiced  during  the  first  two  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era.  He  says  I  admit  im- 
mersion, and  am  under  as  much  obligation 
to  produce  authority  for  it  as  he  !  Eut  it 
was  an  assertion  concerning  a  historical 
fact  that  I  demanded  the  proof  for.  I 
again  demand  that  he  give  us  the  lan- 
guage of  some  respectable  writer  of  that 
period,  whose  decision  can  be  regarded  as 
authority,  wherein  immersion  is  expressly 
pointed  to  as  the  mode  of  baptism  at  that 
time.  It  is  the  assumed  absence  of  such 
mention  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  at  that 
time  that  he  dwells  upon,  and  I  simply 
want  you  to  understand  that  immersion  is 
in  the  same  category,  so  far  as  this  argu- 
ment is  concerned.  Let  the  gentleman 
prove  the  antiquity  of  his  practice,  if  he  ap- 
peals to  its  antiquity  as  proof  of  its  Bible 
authority.     The  grounds  on  which  I  admit 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  361 

the  validity  of  immersion,  as  one  form  of 
baptism,  are  well  understood. 

When  a  man  purposes  to  "  walk  out 
boldly "  upon  the  position  of  a  certain 
critic,  and  is  afterwards  found  occupying 
ground  decidedly  antagonistic  to  that 
v?itic,  is  it  not  proof  that  he  does  deny  the 
authority  of  his  own  critic,  even  without 
his  saying  in  so  many  words,  "  I  deny  the 
authority  of  that  critic?"  Mr.  Carson  says 
that  hapto  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinhling^  as 
properly  as  by  dipping ;''  and  Mr.  F.  must 
either  admit  it  or  deny  the  authority  of  his 
own  favorite  critic.  Which  will  he  do  ? 
Again,  with  reference  to  numerous  exam- 
ples of  the  word,  Mr.  Carson  says:  "They 
relate  to  dyeing  wholly  ivithout  reference  to 
dipping ;  nay,  some  of  them  with  an  express- 
ed reference  to  another  mode.^^  Will  Mr.  F.  ad- 
mit or  deny?  Dare  he  say  yea  or  nay  ?  My 
appeal  to  tiie  iise  of  the  ivord  in  the  Jewish 
Eitual,  the  Apocrapha,  etc.,  was  well  under- 
stood, and  perfectly  legitimate.  Mr.  Carson 
says,  ^'Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language  ;  and 
whatever  is  agreeable  to  this  authority^  stands 
justified  beyond  impeachment^  I  do  appeal 
to  the  use  of  the  word  as  ultimate  proof  of 
its  proper  meaning,  at  the  time  of  the  in- 
stitution of  Christian  baptism.  My  friend 
may  throw  a  little  dust  by  sneering  at  my 
appeal  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  he  can  not  follow  me  in  the 
appeal,  and  answer  my  arguments.  Jesus 
lived  under  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  Jews 


362  DEBATE    ON   THE 

lived  under  it,  and  their  language  took 
shape  from  its  types  and  ceremonies  ;  and 
no  living  man  can  understand  the  language 
of  the  ISTew  Testament  without  studying  it 
in  the  light  of  the  Jewish  Eitual.  Why 
does  the  gentleman  try  to  throw  discredit 
upon  my  appeal  to  the  use  of  the  word  ? 
Is  it  not  because  l^e  feels  that  tise  is  against 
Tiitn  f 

Did  you  observe  his  method  of  getting 
over  the  difficulties  with  which  his  exclu- 
sive notions  stand  encumbered  ?  He  evi- 
dently expects  to  laugh  us  out  of  them  ! 
But  what  progress  did  he  make  in  show- 
ing the  universal  practicability  of  immer- 
sion ?  l^oi  the  least  in  the  world.  But  he 
misrepresented  me  again.  He  left  the  im- 
pression that  I  had  spoken  of  vast  multi- 
tudes living  in  deserts  thousands  of  miles 
from  water,  and  in  the  frozen  regions  of 
the  JSTorth  where  no  water  could  be  obtain- 
ed !  But  I  did  nothing  of  the  kind.  I 
spoke  of  one  haptism  which  was  performed  in 
the  "  desert,"  and  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
polar  regions  who  live  where,  for  a  large 
portion  of  the  year,  water  has  to  be  ob- 
tained hy  melting  snow  and  ice.  Why  did 
not  the  gentleman  represent  me  fairly,  and 
solve  the  difficulty  for  us,  if  it  is  so  easily 
done  ?  He  aff'ects  to  laugh  at  these  diffi- 
culties as  though  they  were  very  small — 
surely  then  he  can  very  easily  take  them 
all  out  of  the  way. 

Bui  I  must  look  at  the   baptism   of  the 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  363 

eunuch.  This  was  in  the  "  desert."  The 
question  is,  loas  he  immersed?  If  so,  where 
is  the  proof?  To  say  it  is  in  hcqytizo,  is  to 
beg  the  question.  To  say  the  preposition 
CIS  necessarily  denotes  an  entrance  into  the 
water,  is  to  assert  without  authority,  and 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  very  best  of 
authority — that  of  use.  Then  where  is  the 
proof?  It  is  not  to  be  found.  Every  chain 
of  evidence  my  friend  can  furnish,  will  lack 
one  essential  link.  But  he  tells  us  there 
Avas  a  "small  river"  called  "a  certain 
water,"  into  which  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
''  waded  !"  His  imagination  is  exceedingly 
fruitful.  He  can  supply  rivers  of  water  in 
the  desert  with  the  greatest  ease  !  iS'o 
wonder  he  laughs  at  small  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  immersion,  in  the  polar  regions. 
But  let  no  one  be  deceived  by  the  gentle- 
man's "  small  river."  If  he  will  just  prove 
that  there  is  or  ever  was  any  "  river  "  be- 
tween Jerusalem  and  G-aza,  we  will  excuse 
him  from  obviating  some  other  difficulties. 
But  this  he  can  not  do.  The  inspired  wri- 
ter says,  "  They  came  unto  a  certain 
water."  That  is  all.  The  expression  is 
eltlioii  epi  ti  hudor.  That  little  word  ti  is 
the  same  that  Mr.  F.  said  in  another  place 
is  properly  translated  man  ;  but  now  he 
appears  to  make  it  the  name  of  a  river  ! 
It  is  a  Greek  particle  which  signifies 
"  some,"  "  any,"  and  is  often  used  in  the 
diminutive  sense,  so  as  to  denote  a  very 
small  quantity.    It  is  here  rendered  "  cer- 


366  DEBATE    ON    THE 

paragraph,  we  have  several  examples  that 
demand  serious  attention.  "  The  first  day 
of  the  week  cometh  Mary  Magdalene  early, 
when  it  was  yet  dark,  eis  to  mnemeioii — unto 
the  sej^ulcher,  and  seeth  the  stone  taken 
away  eh  ton  mnemeion — from  the  sepulcher." 
Here  we  have  eis  and  efc,  "  unto,"  and 
"  from,"  when  there  was  positively  no 
''into"  nor  "out  of."  Deny  this,  who 
can  ?  Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  that 
other  disciple,  and  came  eis  to  mnemeion — • 
to  the  sepulchre.  So  they  ran  both  together, 
and  th«  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter, 
and  came  first  eis  to  mnemeion — to  the  sepul- 
chre. And  he  stooping  down,  and  looking 
in,  saw  the  linen  clothes  lying ;  yet  "went 
he  not  in"  (ou  menoi  eiselthen').  Here  eis 
expresses  the  approach  to  the  sepulchre^ 
while  it  is  expressly  said  he  went  not  in. 
But  in  the  next  verse  we  have  the  fact  of 
Peter's  entrance  stated  exjDressly,  and  ac- 
cordingly we  find  the  prefix  to  the  verb,  as 
follows  :  "  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  fol- 
lowing him,  kai  eiselthen  eis  to  mnemeion — 
and  went  into  the  sepulchre,"  etc.  Then 
in  the  8th  verse  we  find  still  another  strik- 
ing example.  It  reads  as  follows  :  "  Tote 
oun  eiselthen  Icai  ho  alios  mathetes — then  went 
in  also  that  other  disciple,  ho  elthon  ^rotos 
eis  to  mnemeion — which  came  first  to  the 
sepulchre.  In  this,  you  observe,  in  the 
first  clause,  where  the  entrance  of  "  that 
other  disciple  "  is  expressed,  the  word  eis 
is  the  prefix  to  the  verb  ;  but  in  the  other 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  367 

clause,  where  the  approach  of  that  same 
disciple  to  the  sepulchre  is  denoted,  we  have 
the  preposition  e/s,  properly  signifying  to, 
and  the  verb  without  the  jDrefix. 

]^ow  let  my  friend  show,  if  he  can,  that 
my  view  of  these  prepositions  is  wrong.  I 
do  not  say  that  eis  never  means  into,  nor 
that  eh  never  means  out  of;  nor  is  it  suflS- 
cient  for  him  to  show  that  they  do  some- 
times mean  thus  ;  but  he  must  show  that 
they  do  necessarily  mean  into  and  out  of,  in 
the  place  in  question.  I  want  no  dodging 
nor  evading,  but  a  fair  investigation  of  the 
issue.  My  position  is  negative  and  his  is 
positive.  I  hold  that  eis  does  not  necessa- 
rily denote  an  entrance  into  the  water  ;  but 
he  must  show  that  it  does.  The  gentle- 
man said  something  about  "  wading  " — but 
if  he  will  find  anything  in  the  narrative 
about  "  wading  "  or  like  "  wading,"  I  will 
excuse  him  from  finding  the  prefix  to  the 
verb,  in  order  to  express  the  act  of  enter- 
ing into  the  water  !  You  now  see  that  the 
gentleman  has  something  to  do  to  find  a 
plain  case  of  immersion,  even  in  this,  his 
favorite  New  Testament  example. 

He  repeated  his  sweeping  assertions  in 
regard  to  the  baptism  of  our  Savior,  and 
instead  of  answering  my  plain  and  perti- 
nent question  as  to  the  requirement  of  the 
Levitical  law  that  could  be  fulfilled  by 
immersion,  he  tried  to  excite  some  merri- 
ment by  talking  about  leaving  me  among 
the    types  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jews ! 

25 


368  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Does  he  forget  that  John  and  Jesus  were 
living  under  the  Levitical  law,  and  that 
they  were  fulfilling  the  righteousness  of 
that  law  ?  Then  I  repeat  the  inquiry — 
What  requirement  of  that  law  could  be 
fulfilled  by  the  immersion  of  Jesus  ?  If  he 
will  not  answer  this,  let  him  tell  us  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase,  "Thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness."  Does  it 
relate  to  the  Levitical  law  at  all  ?  If  so, 
why  pour  contempt  on  my  reference  to 
that  law  ?  If  not,  why  not  say  so,  and  tell 
us  what  it  does  relate  to  ?  Jesus  waited 
till  he  was  thirty  years  old,  because  the 
law  required  it ;  and  the  same  law  that 
required  this,  required  a  religious  consecra- 
tion by  the  sprinkling  of  water  ;  and  it  has 
been  already  shown  that  those  w^ashings, 
enjoined  by  the  law  to  be  done  by  "  sprink- 
ling,"  are  called  in  the  'New  Testament 
bajptismois.  No  wonder  my  friend  is  shy 
about  this  point !  He  feels  the  ground 
trembling  beneath  his  feet.  His  loud 
noise  and  frequent  repetitions  about  going 
down  into  the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,  will  avail  him  nothing,  so  long  as  he 
refuses  to  examine  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case.  And  he  thinks  John  had  help 
from  other  hands  in  baptizing  the  multi- 
tudes that  flocked  to  his  baptism  ?  Let 
him  prove  it,  and  then  we  will  receive  it  as 
a  satisfactory  solution  of  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties of  his  case.  And  he  thinks  the 
twelve  Apostles  could  easily  immerse  three 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  369 

thousand  in  a  few  hours  ;  but  did  ho  prove 
it?  I  doubt  whether  ihey  labored  against 
time — disposing  of  two  in  a  minute !  But 
lohere  did  they  immerse  this  multitude? 
There  was  no  river  at  Jerusalem— that  is 
certain.  The  only  chance  was  to  resort  to 
"pools."  Immersionists  have  no  difl&culty 
in  finding  "  pools  "  any  where  !  Their  great 
cry  is  "  the  pools  !  the  pools  !"  whenever 
they  are  pressed  on  this  point.  But  they 
can  find  no  "  pool  "  available  in  this  case, 
unless  it  be  that  of  Bethesda ;  but  that  was 
not  available.  It  was  within  the  precincts 
of  the  temple,  under  the  control  of  the 
priests,  and  used  for  washing  sacrifices,  if 
obtainable,  the  water  was  not  "  pure 
w^ater,"  after  the  washing  of  so  many  ani- 
mals for  sacrifice;  and  the  "  j^riests  "  would 
not,  just  at  that  time,  be  quite  so  accom- 
modating to  the  Apostles,  whom  they  des- 
pised, as  to  allow  them  to  immerse  three 
thousand  souls  into  a  new  faith,  which  they 
regarded  with  jealously,  as  the  most  fear- 
ful foe  to  Judaism.  Will  the  gentleman 
look  again  at  the  facts  in  the  case? 

The  gentleman  made  some  significant 
remarks  about  "  honesty."  He  talks  about 
those  who  "  keep  their  own  consciences," 
etc.,  in  a  way  that  looks  very  much  like 
calling  in  question  the  conscientiousness  of 
those  who  differ  from  him.  And  he  talks 
about  conscientious  people  getting  dissat- 
isfied, and  being  unable  to  die  in  peace  be- 
cause they  were  not  immersed ;  leaving  the 


3G8  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Does  lie  forget  that  John  and  Jesus  were 
living  under  the  Levitical  law,  and  that 
they  w^ere  fulfilling  the  righteousness  of 
that  law  ?  Then  I  repeat  the  inquiry — 
What  requirement  of  that  law  could  be 
fulfilled  by  the  immersion  of  Jesus  ?  If  he 
will  not  answer  this,  let  him  tell  us  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  Thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness."  Does  it 
relate  to  the  Levitical  law  at  all  ?  If  so, 
why  pour  contempt  on  my  reference  to 
that  law  ?  If  not,  why  not  say  so,  and  tell 
us  what  it  does  relate  to  ?  Jesus  waited 
till  he  was  thirty  years  old,  because  the 
law  required  it ;  and  the  same  law  that 
required  this,  required  a  religious  consecra- 
tion by  the  sprinkling  of  water  ;  and  it  has 
been  already  shown  that  those  washings, 
enjoined  by  the  law  to  be  done  by  "  sprink- 
ling,"  are  called  in  the  llSTew  Testament 
haptismois.  JSTo  wonder  my  friend  is  shy 
about  this  point !  He  feels  the  ground 
trembling  beneath  his  feet.  His  loud 
noise  and  frequent  repetitions  about  going 
down  into  the  water ^  and  coming  iij)  out  of  the 
water ^  will  avail  him  nothing,  so  long  as  he 
refuses  to  examine  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case.  And  he  thinks  John  had  help 
from  other  hands  in  baptizing  the  multi- 
tudes that  flocked  to  his  baptism  ?  Let 
him  prove  it,  and  then  we  will  receive  it  as 
a  satisfactory  solution  of  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties of  his  case.  And  he  thinks  the 
twelve  Apostles  could  easily  immerse  three 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  369 

thousand  in  a  few  honrs  ;  but  did  ho  prove 
it  ?  I  doubt  whether  they  labored  against 
time — disposing  of  two  in  a  minute  !  But 
where  did  they  immerse  this  multitude? 
There  was  no  river  at  Jerusalem — that  is 
certain.  The  only  chance  was  to  resort  to 
"  pools."  Immersionists  have  no  difl&culty 
in  finding  "  pools  "  any  where  !  Their  great 
cry  is  "  the  pools  !  the  pools  !"  whenever 
they  are  pressed  on  this  point.  But  they 
can  find  no  "  i)Ool  "  available  in  this  case, 
unless  it  be  that  of  Bethesda;  but  that  was 
not  available.  It  was  within  the  j)recincts 
of  the  temple,  under  the  control  of  the 
priests,  and  used  for  washing  sacrifices,  if 
obtainable,  the  water  was  not  "  jDure 
water,"  after  the  washing  of  so  many  ani- 
mals for  sacrifice  ;  and  the  "  priests  "  would 
not,  just  at  that  time,  be  quite  so  accom- 
modating to  the  Apostles,  whom  they  des- 
pised, as  to  allow  them  to  immerse  three 
thousand  souls  into  a  new  faith,  which  they 
regarded  with  jealously,  as  the  most  fear- 
ful foe  to  Judaism.  Will  the  gentleman 
look  again  at  the  facts  in  the  case? 

The  gentleman  made  some  significant 
remarks  about  "  honesty."  He  talks  about 
those  who  "  keep  their  own  consciences," 
etc.,  in  a  way  that  looks  very  much  like 
calling  in  question  the  conscientiousness  of 
those  who  diifer  from  him.  And  he  talks 
about  conscientious  people  getting  dissat- 
isfied, and  being  unable  to  die  in  peace  be- 
cause they  were  not  immersed ;  leaving  the 


370  DEBATE   ON   THE 

impression  that  nobody  is  honest,  and  that 
nobody  can  die  in  peace,  but  the  immersed. 
Why  not  come  out  like  a  man  and  assert, 
in  the  face  of  Heaven,  what  he  covertly 
insinuates,  and  what  is  no  doubt  the  legiti- 
mate conclusion  from  his  premises  ?  Let 
him  tell  us  w^hat  he  means,  and  I  will  know 
where  to  find  him,  and  just  how  to  answer 
him? 

I  shall  now  call  your  attention  to  the 
baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  There  are  two 
points  clearly  presented  in  the  history  of 
this  case,  that  can  never  be  reconciled  with 
the  idea  that  he  was  immersed.  He  was 
baptized  in  the  house,  and  that  v^iile  standing 
up.  I  refer  to  Acts  ix.  17-19  :  "And  Ana- 
nias went  his  way,  and  entered  into  the  house: 
and  putting  his  hands  on  him,  said,  Broth- 
er Saul,  the  Lord  (even  Jesus  that  appeared 
unto  thee  in  the  way  as  thou  earnest)  hath 
sent  me,  that  thou  mightest  receive  thy 
sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Grhost. 
And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes 
as  it  had  scales  :  and  he  received  sight 
forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  baptized. 
And  when  he  had  received  meat  he  was 
strengthened."  Saul  was  in  the  house  of 
Judas,  on  the  street  called  Straight,  in  the 
city  of  Damascus.  He  had  been  there  for 
three  days  without  sight,  and  neither  did 
he  eat  nor  drink.  He  was  evidently  in  a 
prostrate,  helpless  condition,  through  ex- 
cessive fasting,  anxiety,  and  distress  of 
mind.     He  was  not  in  a  condition  to  under- 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  371 

go  the  labor  of  traveling  out  in  search  of 
water;  and  the  narrative  not  only  gives  no 
account  of  any  such  thing,  but  actually 
precludes  the  idea.  It  impresses  us  with 
the  shortness  of  time  that  elapsed  between 
the  entering  of  Ananias  into  the  house 
where  he  was,  and  the  consummation  of 
his  errand.  He  entered — put  his  hands  on 
him — said  Brother  Saul — and  immediatehj 
the  scales  fell  from  his  eyes,  and  he  re- 
ceived sight  forthioithy  and  arose,  and  was 
baptized.  Then  he  received  meat  and  was 
strengthened,  so  as  to  be  able  to  preach 
Christ  in  the  synagogues.  But  he  received 
no  meat  until  after  he  was  baptized  ;  and 
no  living  man  can  ever  gather  from  the 
narrative  that  he  left  the  house  till  after  he 
received  meat  and  was  strengthened.  He 
was  baptized  in  the  Jwiise,  just  as  certainly 
as  the  narrative  is  true.  Let  my  friend 
get  him  out  of  the  house  before  baptism,  if 
he  is  able. 

But  he  "arose" — anastas — stood  up,  and 
was  baptized.  In  Acts  i.  15,  we  have  pre- 
cisely the  same  expression  in  regard  to 
Peter,  where  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
stood  on  his  feet:  "And  in  those  days  Peter 
stood  up — anastas — in  the  midst  of  the  dis- 
ciples," etc.  This  is  the  very  idea  con- 
veyed by  anastas.  Peter  "  stood  up,"  and 
Saul  "  stood  up,"  and  he  was  baptized  in 
that  position.  This  agrees  with  the  com- 
mand as  given  by  Ananias:  "  And  now 
why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be  baptized;" 


372  DEBATE   ON    THE 

Acts  xxii.  16.  Tlio  original  is  anasfas  hap- 
tisai — literally,  stand  up,  and  he  haptized. 
This  is  to  the  point  and  conclusive.  Saul 
was  not  immersed,  but  he  was  baptized  in 
a  private  house,  in  the  city  of  Damascus, 
while  standing  on  his  feet !  If  my  friend 
calls  in  question  the  correctness  of  my  inter- 
pretation of  anastas  haptisai,  I  will  corrobo- 
rate it  by  examples  enough  to  pnt  it  be- 
yond the  reach  of  cavil.  This  is  one  of 
the  "plain  cases  of  the  New  Testament," 
for  which  my  friend  has  been  calling.  I 
judge  it  is  rather  too  plain  for  his  comfort. 
He  certainly  will  not  pretend  that  Saul  was 
immersed  in  a  private  house,  while  stand- 
ing on  his  feet.  But  let  him  take  his  own 
course  in  regard  to  this  baptism.  ~^o  man 
can  make  immersion  of  it. 

Another  "  plain  case  of  the  ]^ew  Testa- 
ment," is  the  baptism  of  Cornelius,  and 
those  that  were  with  him  in  his  house,  as 
recorded  Acts  x.  They  were  assembled  in 
the  house  of  Cornelius  to  hear  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  while  Peter  was  yet  preach- 
ing, the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which 
heard  the  word.  The  Jews  present  expressed 
some  surprise,  because  that  on  the  Gentiles 
also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
"Then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man  for- 
bid water,  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized, which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them 
to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Now  here  are  the  facts  :    Thoy  were  in  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  373 

house,  and  they  must  have  the  water 
brought  to  them,  or  they  must  repair  to 
the  water.  If  the  former,  the  baptism  was 
by  affusion  ;  but  if  the  latter,  it  might  have 
been  by  immersion.  Which  did  Peter  con- 
template— the  removal  of  the  water  to  the 
people,  or  the  removal  of  the  people  to  the 
Avater?  His  question  was  an  inquiry  for 
obstacles  in  the  way.  He  wanted  to  know 
if  there  was  any  prohibition  that  would 
hinder  the  removal  of  the  water  or  the 
people.  If  he  contemplated  removing  the 
people,  in  ashing  about  prohibitions,  he 
would  naturally  ask  if  there  were  any  pro- 
hibitions on  the  j)Gople — who  can  forbid 
the  people  ?  But  this  he  did  not  do.  He 
sought  to  know  whether  the  water  was 
prohibited ;  hence,  he  contemplated  the 
removal  of  the  water.  This  is  plain  and 
natural.  It  harmonizes  delightfully  with 
our  doctrine  of  baptism  in  the  house,  by  af- 
fusion ;  but  no  man  living  can  see  any  in- 
dication of  immersion  there.  A  German 
divine  has  well  said  that  the  inquiry  of 
Peter,  when  put  into  modern  etiquette, 
would  run  thus  :  "  Will  some  one  present 
be  kind  enough  to  furnish  us  a  little  water, 
that  these  may  now  be  baptized,  who  have 
already  received  the  Holy  Ghost?" 

]N^ow,  my  friends,  let  me  remind  you  of 
the  ground  we  occupy.  Mr.  F.  is  not  mere- 
ly tr3ang  to  prove  immersion,  but  exclu- 
sive immersion.  He  must  find  immersion 
in  every  case   where  the   word  haptko  oc- 


374  DEBATE    ON   THE 

curs  in  the  Bible.  Has  he  done  it?  Can 
he  do  it?  Never  !  I  am  not  trying  to  prove 
that  haptizo  ought  to  be  translated  pour  or 
sprinkle;  that  is  not  my  doctrine;  I  do  not 
believe  it  ought  to  be  translated  any  differ- 
ent from  the  common  version.  Baptize  is 
now  an  English  word,  and  a  just  equiva- 
lent for  haptizo;  it  is  the  best  equivalent 
the  language  contains.  Sprinkle  is  too 
limited,  pour  is  too  limited,  immerse  is  too 
limited — none  of  these  words  can  give  the 
full  idea  of  baptize.  They  will  always 
lack  the  religious  element.  They  lack  the 
idea  of  dedication.  Consecrate  would 
come  nearer  the  idea  than  either  of  the 
specific  terms  that  express  mode.  But  Mr. 
F.  makes  a  wonderful  ado  over  this — calls 
it  a  wonderful  word,  etc.  Now,  let  me  ask 
him  to  give  us  a  single  English  word  that 
is  a  perfect  equivalent  for  the  Greek  Hades^ 
rendered  hell  ten  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. He  thinks  it  so  strange  that  some 
Greek  words  have  no  exact  equivalents  in 
English  that  I  want  to  test  the  matter  a 
little.  We  will  soon  see  the  propriety  of 
my  remarks  on  the  primary  and  proper 
meaning  of  words.  Mr.  F.  will  get  light 
rapidly  enough  for  his  comfort.  I  hope  he 
will  keep  in  good  cheer. 


ACTION   OF   BAPTIS3I.  375 

MR.  FRANKLIN'S  SIXTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  am  truly  thankful  to  a  good  and  gra- 
cious Providence,  which  has  been  over  us 
through  the  past  night,  for  the  health  and 
strength  afforded  us  for  the  prosecution  of 
our  investigation.  I  trust  the  same  good 
feeling  will  pervade  our  discussion  to  its 
termination.  We  have  now  a  full  day  be- 
fore us  to  elaborate  the  argument  intro- 
duced ;  respond  to  objections  and  develop 
the  subject  in  all  its  bearings  more  fully. 
I  shall  not  confine  myself  to  any  one  of 
the  speeches  of  my  friend,  but  collect  a  few 
items  from  several  of  his  S]Deeches  that  de- 
mand some  attention. 

The  worthy  gentleman  has  certainly 
learned  something  from  the  fable  of  the 
rat  and  the  meal.  He  has  discovered  that 
"caution  is  the  parent  of  safety."  His 
tread  is  with  extreme  cautiousness.  He 
saw,  from  an  early  period,  that  he  could 
prove  nothing  in  this  controversy,  and 
consequently  sought  a  negative  position, 
where  he  could  deny,  demand  proof  and 
discant  upon  "  assertions."  But  he  can  not 
escape  in  this  way.  Merely  denying  will 
not  answer  his  purpose.  He  practices 
sprinhling  and  j^oitrinff  for  baptism.  Has  he 
found  any  authority  for  either?  Not  one 
syllable.  The  position  I  occupy  is  very 
plain.  I  practice  immersion  for  baptism. 
His  own  Discipline  recognizes  immersion 


376  DEBATE    ON   THE 

for  baptism.  Mr.  Wesley  and  Dr.  Clarke 
admitted  immersion  for  baptism.  The 
Methodist  Church  endorses  immersion  for 
baptism,  both  in  practicing  it  and  in 
her  Conference  endorsing  it  in  the  Dis- 
cipline, and  in  the  writings  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley sent  forth  by  her  and  sold  by  Meth- 
odist j)i't)achers.  Mr.  Merrill  endorses  im- 
mersion by  administering  it  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  and  calling  it  baptism.  He 
has  said,  "God  forbid  that  I  should  say 
any  thing  against  it."  You  see,  then,  that 
that  we  have  no  debate  on  immersion — 
that  my  opponent,  his  Discipline,  Confer- 
ence and  whole  church,  endorse  immersion. 
It  is,  then,  established,  and  admitted  by 
Wesley,  Clarke,  the  Discipline,  Conference 
and  the  whole  Methodist  Church,  that  im- 
mersion is  baptism.  This  much  is  settled, 
and  upon  this  we  have  no  debate. 

But  aside  from  this  practice,  though  im- 
mersion is  agreed  by  us  all  to  be  baptism, 
he  practices  sprinlding  and  2->ouring^  and 
calls  it  baptism ;  but  for  this  practice  he 
furnishes  not  one  word  of  proof  from  any 
source.  But  he  is  not  singular  in  this  ;  for 
no  man  ever  did,  or  ever  can,  adduce  any 
authority  for  any  thing  but  immersion. 
It  is  impossible  to  bring  something  out  of 
nothing.  The  strength  of  Samson  could 
not  do  this.  But  how  does  he  meet  my  ar- 
gument founded  upon  the  expression  "born 
of  water?"  "The  leading  thought  in  this 
expression  is,  that  there  is  the  beginning  of 


ACTION   OF   BAPTIS3I.  377 

the  new  manner  of  life,"  lie  says.  He  asks, 
"AYhat  is  it  designed  to  represent  ?"  He 
answers,  "  Most  unquestionably  the  quick- 
ening power  and  energy  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."  If  that  is  the  meaning  of  the  ex- 
pression, why  does  his  Discipline,  then,  ap- 
ply it  to  baptism?  And  what,  then,  does 
"born  of  the  Spirit"  mean?  It  is  not  "born 
of  the  Si:)irit  and  of  the  Spirit,"  but  "born 
of  loater  and  of  the  Spirit."  Born  of  water, 
his  own  Discipline  makes  baptism.  The 
figurative  expression,  "  born  of  water,"  does 
not  mean  "born  of  the  Spirit ;"  for  that  is 
added  to  it ;  nor  does  it  represent  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit.  "  Born  of  the  Spirit" 
represents  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  but 
"born  of  water"  is  baptism,  and  is  applied 
to  it  in  his  own  Discipline  and  by  Mr.  "Wes- 
ley. The  holy  Apostle  says  we  are  "  be- 
gotten by  the  word  of  truth  ;"  and,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  it  is  by  the  Spirit  who 
spoke  the  truth,  through  holy  men  of  God  ; 
and  when  baptized,  we  are  "  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Sj^irit,"  as  the  child  is  born  of 
the  mother  and  father. 

The  worthy  gentleman  talked  so  deli- 
cately of  "taste"  and  "modesty,"  that 
I  almost  feared  he  would  faint.  If  there 
was  any  thing  wanting  in  taste,  indelicate 
or  immodest,  it  was  in  his  mind,  and  not  in 
the  chaste  and  elegant  figure  from  the  pure 
and  holy  lips  of  our  Lord,  nor  from  any 
thing  uttered  by  me  in  reference  to  it.  It 
is  in  as  good  taste,  in  a  pure  mind,  to  speak 


378  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  being  "born  of  water"  and  "begotten  by 
the  word  of  truth,"  as  to  speak  of  being 
buried  or  raised  from  the  dead.  But  after 
the  gentleman  recovered  himself  from  his 
fine  taste  and  extreme  modesty,  he  inquired 
whether  there  is  one  birth  or  two.  One 
birth,  most  unquestionably,  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  gives  the  life ; 
and  after  the  Sj^irit,  through  the  truth,  has 
changed  the  heart,  the  person  comes  forth 
from  baptism,  or  is  born  of  water,  to  a  new 
state,  or  a  new  manner  of  life.  What  foun- 
dation has  he  for  making  "  born  of  water" 
represent  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  in  the 
same  sentence  where  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
is  represented  in  other  words  ?  There  is 
certainly  no  reason  for  representing  that 
by  which  the  words  "  born  of  water,"  in  the 
same  sentence,  is  represented  by  other 
words.  The  words  "  born  of  the  Spirit," 
represent  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
words  "  born  of  water,"  represent  baptism 
and  nothing  else.  In  being  "  born  of  wa- 
ter," the  person  comes  from  the  water  as 
the  child  comes  from  it's  mother.  This 
figure  is  applicable  to  immersion,  but  not 
to  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  the  gentleman 
admits. 

The  gentleman  has  attempted  to  reply 
to  my  argument,  founded  upon  the  ex- 
pression, "planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death."  This  argument,  he  thinks, 
he  had  sufiiciently  replied  to  in  a  former 
speech,  in  which  he  showed  that  the  whole 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  379 

passage  makes  no  allusion  to  the  mode  of 
baptism.  This  sounds  strange  on  the  ear 
of  this  audience,  truly !  "What  do  the  words 
*'  buried  with  him  by  baptism"  mean  ?  Have 
they  any  meaning  at  all  ?  He  admits  that 
they  do  not  mean,  "  sprinkled  with  him  by 
baptism."  What  does  the  expression,  "plan- 
ted together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death," 
mean  ?  He  admits  that  it  does  not  mean 
sprinkling.  I  think  he  will  find  but  few 
here  who  will  not  agree  with  him  in  this. 
Yet  baptism  is  here  !  Yes,  baptism  and  no 
sprinkling.  But  we  find  burying  audi  plant- 
ing. But  this  planting  which  was  done  by 
burying  by  baptism,  or  as  expressed  Col.  ii. 
12,  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  the  gen- 
tleman soon  "  expounds"  into  grafting^  and 
makes  it  simply  represent  ingrafting  into 
Christ.  But  this  "  planting  together  "  is 
"  in  the  likeness  of  bis  death,"  and  that  is 
in  his  burial.  They  are  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death  when  "  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death,"  at  which  time  they  are 
"  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death."  Why  did  the  gentleman  try  to  ex- 
cite a  smile  by  speaking  of  a  "  sudden  dip 
into  the  water  and  out  again  ?"  This  he 
"dignifies  with  the  name  of  argument!" 
This  may  pass  for  ridicule  or  slang,  but  not 
for  argument,  in  the  city  of  Portsmouth, 
especially  from  him  who  practices  immer- 
sion in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

Mr.  M.  was  surprised  to  hear  me  quote 
the   words,   "Having  our  bodies  washed 


380  DEBATE    ON    THE 

with  pure  water,"  and  apply  them  to  bap- 
tism. He  says,  I  must  know,  as  well  as  I 
know  any  thing,  that  this  has  no  reference 
to  baptism.  He  says,  I  may  "  spread  out" 
on  the  absurdity  of  washing  the  body  by 
sprinkling.  I  am  truly  sorry  to  set  the 
father  at  variance  against  the  son,  but  I 
can  not  avoid  it.  H  my  memory  is  not  at 
fault,  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  note  on  the  words 
"  buried  with  him  in  baptism"  (Col.  ii.  12), 
says  :  "  This  as  evidently  alludes  to  the  an- 
cient manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion, 
as  that  other  passage,  Heb.  x.  22,  does  to 
that  of  sprinkling."  I  do  not  know  that  I 
have  the  j)recise  words  ;  but,  if  I  have  not,  I 
will  turn  to  the  passage  and  read  it.  Father 
Wesley  differs  with  his  son  in  the  gosj)el, 
Mr.  M.,  in  two  particulars :  Ist,  Mr.  M.  de- 
nies that  the  passage  has  any  reference  to 
baptism ;  Father  Wesley  applies  it  to  bap- 
tism. 2nd,  Mr.  M.  admits  that  there  is  no 
sprinkling  in  it;  Father  Wesley  finds  sprink- 
ling in  it.  He  thinks  I  knew  it  had  no  ref- 
erence to  baptism ;  but  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  thinks  Father  Wesley  knew  it 
had  no  reference  to  it  or  not.  But  entering 
still  more  profoundly  and  learnedly  into  the 
subject,  he  inquires,  "Is  the  word  wasli^ 
hajjto,  or  haptizo^  or  equivalent  to  either  ?" 
It  is  neither  hapio,  or  hapiizo,  nor  equivalent 
to  either  ;  it  is  the  result  that  folloAvs  im- 
mersing, but  not  sprinkling.  The  heart  is 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience — sprink- 
led in  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  the  body  is 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  381 

washed  in  pure  water,  when  baptized,  or  as 
a  result  of  baptizing.  The  sprinkling  of 
the  heart  from  an  evil  conscience,  has  to  do 
with  the  purification  of  the  heart ;  but  to 
make  the  iv ashing  of  the  bodi/,  mean  the  pur i- 
Jication  of  the  soul,  is  most  preposterous  "ex- 
pounding." The  truth  is,  that  the  Apostle 
refers  to  both  the  internal  work  and  the 
external  effect.  Internally,  the  converted 
man  has  had  his  heart  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience ;  and  externally,  he  has  had 
his  body  washed  with  pure  water.  This  ex- 
ternal washing  results  from  immersion  and 
nothing  else.  There  is  no  more  reason  for 
saying  it  refers  "  to  the  moral  cleansing  of 
the  soul,"  nor  Scripture,  than  for  saying  it 
refers  to  the  Romish  confessional.  His  lit- 
tle cavil,  in  reference  to  "pure  water,"  and 
"  turbid  water,"  will  not  convince  sensible 
men  that  icashing  the  hody  in  pure  loater 
means  "  moral  cleansing  of  the  soul,"  and 
has  no  reference  to  any  kind  of  water,  even 
if  they  can  not  see  exactly  how  the  word 
"  pure"  came  to  be  used  there. 

Touching  the  argument  from  baptizing 
in  Jordan  and  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  he 
saj'S  :  "  I  will  only  remark,  that  if  he  will 
venture  to  say  the  preposition  en  does  not 
and  can  not  have  the  sense  of  loith,  I  will 
meet  him  at  that  point."  Is  he  not  adroit  ? 
Why  does  he  not  launch  out,  and  say  that 
"baptizing  in  Jordan,"  "baptizing  in  Enon," 
and  "bajjtizing  in  the  river  Jordan,"  should 
be  read,  "  baptizing  %cith  Jordan,"  "  baptiz- 


382  DEBATE   ON   THE 

ing  wltli  Enon,"  and  "  baptizing  loith  the 
river  Jordan  ?"  For  the  best  reason  in  the 
world,  viz.,  because  he  will  not  jeopardize 
his  reputation  as  a  scholar  so  to  do.  He 
knows  the  baptizing  was  '•  in  Jordan,"  "  in 
Enon,"  and  "i?i  the  river  of  Jordan  ;"  and 
though  he  seemed  to  think  that  I  had  in- 
sinuated that  he  was  not  honest,  I  believe 
that  his  candor  and  honor  will  not  allow 
him  to  deny  that  en  is  correctly  translated 
in  these  places.  At  all  events,  he  has  not 
denied  or  questioned  the  translation.  So 
long,  then,  as  the  translation  in  my  proof 
is  not  questioned,  there  is  no  need  of  argu- 
ment about  the  use  of  the  original  word  e%, 
in  other  places.  My  proof  stands  not  only 
unimpeached,  but  unimpeachable. 

The  worthy  gentleman  has  spoken  truly 
sympathetically  of  the  King  James'  trans- 
lators. He  can  not  hear  it  intimated  that 
they  have  dealt  unfairly  with  us.  But  did 
he  offer  any  excuse  for  them,  in  the  instance 
of  unfairness  cited  by  me?  Did  he  deny 
my  statement  ?  JN'ot  one  word  of  it.  How 
then  does  he  attempt  to  exhon(^Tate  them  ? 
I  stated  that,  where  we  have  the  account 
of  Naman  dipping  himself  in  Jordan,  in  the 
Septuagint,  we  have  haptizo.  The  King 
James'  translators  have  translated  it  "  dip- 
ped." When  these  same  translators  came 
to  the  same  Greek  word  haptizo^  in  the  same 
form  of  expression,  in  the  ]^ew  Testament, 
they  transfer  the  word,  instead  of  translat- 
ing it.     In  the  commencement  of  the  Kew 


ACTION   OF  BAPTISM.  383 

Testament,  they  translate  en  "in"  seventeen 
times,  "  within"  once,  and  "among"  once, 
in  the  first  nineteen  occurrences  of  the  word. 
They  then  come  to  "  baptizing  en  water," 
and  translate  it  "  with,"  till  done  with  that 
one  passage,  and  then  translate  it  nine  times 
in  succession  "in,"  then  once  "with,"  and 
twenty-nine  times  "  in."  Now  there  are 
reasons  why  they  could  not  translate  it 
^^  with''  in  some  instances.  They  could  not 
say  with  the  wilderness,  with  Jordan,  nor 
with  Enon.  But  there  is  no  reason  why 
they  might  not  have  translated  it  uniform- 
ly "m"  in  all  these  places.  It  is  no  matter 
how  en  could  or  should  be  translated  in 
some  passage  not  in  dispute ;  but  in  the 
passages  quoted  by  me,  and  relied  uj)on  as 
proof,  that  en  should  be  translated  "  in"  has 
not  been  denied  by  Mr.  M.,  and,  I  think, 
will  not  be. 

Ey  the  way,  I  see  no  reason  why  any 
man  of  our  time  should  be  so  smitten  with 
the  greatness  and  learning  of  the  King 
James'  translators.  What  have  they  done 
for  the  world?  j\Iy  opponent  has  spoken 
freely  in  their  praise  ;  but  what  does  he 
know  about  them  ?  Can  he  even  give  their 
names,  place  of  residence,  and  position. 
Surely  he  can  not  with  any  certainty,  ex- 
cept a  very  few  of  them.  It  sounds  aston- 
ishing to  hear  men  extol  the  King  James' 
translators,  who  can  not  tell  who  one  half 
of  them  were.  It  has  become  so  commoi; 
that  many  do  it  without  thinking  how  lit- 
'  261 


384  DEBATE   ON   THE 

tie  is  known,  even  by  well-informed  men, 
About  them. 

Mr.  M.  thinks  he  could  admit  all  I  have 
said  on  the  baptism  of  sufferings  without 
detriment  to  his  position.  He  says  that  no 
man  claims  that  it  has  the  specific  sense  of 
sprinkling  in  that  place.  He  admits  that 
it  means  overwhelmiug.  If  this  is  not  det- 
rimental to  his  position,  I  know  not  what 
could  be.  The  passage  shows  that  haptizo 
does  not  mean  sprinkle,  but  that  it  does  mean 
overwhelm  or  immerse.  This  is  an  end  to 
it  being  the  proper  name  of  an  ordinance. 
There  is  no  proper  name  of  an  ordinance 
here,  nor  ordinance  itself.  It  is  not  baptizo 
here  neither,  npon  which  he  attempted  to 
make  a  little  play,  but  baptisma.  Is  it  the 
proper  name  of  the  ordinance?  ISTo;  he  ad- 
mits that  it  means  overwhelming.  He  sig- 
nificantly inquires,  What  of  bapiismosf 
Well,  sir,  it  is  certain  that  it  is  not  the 
proper  name  of  an  ordinance  (Mark  vii.  4), 
or  the  ordinance  was  administered  to  cups 
and  pots.  Baptismos  is  there  found  in  the 
original,  and  translated  "  washing,"  in  the 
common  version.  There  was  no  ordinance 
there.  The  same  is  true  of  Mark  vi.  8,  and 
also  of  Heb.  ix.  10.  This  latter  passage 
does  not  mean  "diverse  ordinances,^^  I  pre- 
sume. "Diverse  immersions"  are  here 
mentioned,  though  no  ordinance  can  be  re- 
ferred to. 

That  my  worthy  friend  has  no   position, 
is  evident.     That  he  has  no   well  defined 


ACl-iON   OP   BAPTISM.  385 

doctrine  which  he  is  aiming  to  defend,  or 
no  work  that  he  is  aiming  to  do,  only  to  op- 
pose me,  is  clear.  This  was  manifest  to  all, 
from  his  excitement  on  last  evening.  He 
was  prodigiously  perplexed,  and  when  he 
came  to  what  he  was  unable  to  answer,  he 
disposed  of  it  by  pronouncing  it  "folly" 
and  "  silly."  That  was  all  cheap,  and  duly 
appreciated  by  me  ;  but  how  he  was  to 
answer  my  argument,  he  found  not.  I 
sympathize  with  him,  and  dislike  to  ex- 
pose him,  bul  can  not  let  him  pass.  I  shall, 
therefore,  place  him  and  his  position  out  in 
clear  daylight,  that  all  may  see  where  he 
has  been.  He  has,  then,  beginning  with 
our  correspondence,  which  I  know  he  dis- 
likes to  hear  of,  been  at  the  following 
angles  : 

Position  1.  The  mode  is  not  definitely  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible. 

Position  2.  The  mode  is  not  sprinkling, 
pouring  nor  immersion,  as  such,  but 
baptism.  I  stop  not  now  to  inquire  how 
he  knows  this,  if  the  mode  is  not  revealed. 
If  it  is  not  revealed,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
we  do  not  know  any  thing  about  it.  Moses 
says,  "Eevealed  things  belong  to  us  and  to 
our  children,  but  secret  things,"  or  things 
not  revealed,  "  belong  to  God." 

Position  3.  He  admits  that  immersion  is 
valid  baj^tism,  but  not  because  it  was  prac- 
ticed by  the  Apostles,  or  divinely  author- 
ized, and  administers  it  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord. 


386  DEBATE   ON   THE 

Position  4.  He  quotes  Scripture  to  prove 
sprinkling,  but  how  he  harmonizes  these 
Scriptures,  containing  clear  revelations  of 
sprinkling  for  baptism,  with  his  other  posi- 
tion, that  the  mode  is  not  revealed,  he  does 
not  inform  us. 

Position  5.  He  learns,  from  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  baptism  is  rightly 
administered  by  pouring. 

Position  6.  The  candidate  appears  be- 
fore him,  and  he  lays  aside  all  his  learning, 
proof  and  argument,  and  inquires,  "  How 
do  you  choose  to  have  the  ordinance  ad- 
ministered?" The  candidate  decides  the 
"  vexed  question,"  not  revealed  in  the 
Bible,  and  the  preacher  yields  to  the  de- 
cision, though,  in  some  instances,  rather  re- 
luctantly. 

Position  7.  He  then  soothes  his  con- 
science, in  this  pliable  theology,  by  quoting 
the  words,  "  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
suaded in  his  own  mind." 

Tlie  gentleman,  in  his  last  speech  last 
night,  accused  nie  of  misrepresenting  him. 
No  doubt  he  thought  so,  in  his  excitement, 
but  this  I  will  not  do.  I  will  attack  his 
real  positions,  where  they  have  relevancy 
enough  to  demand  it,  or  admit  that  I  can 
not.  He  says,  "  I  said  that  the  ordinance 
which  he  calls  initiatory^  was  not  sprink- 
ling, as  such.  This  is  the  ground,  and 
all  the  ground,  he  has  for  saying  I  admit 
that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism."  JSTow,  the 
worthy  gentleman   is  mistaken.     Here  is 


ACTION  OP  BAPTISM.  387 

his  language,  in  the  correspondence.  Hear 
it :  "  The  ordinance  called  '  initiatory,'  is 
baptism.  It  is  not  sprinkling,  nor  pour- 
ing, nor  immersion,  as  such,  but  baptism." 
I  read  from  his  letter  of  March  9th.  He 
Bays,  "  The  ordinane  called  '  initiatory,'  is 
baptism."  What  does  he  say  of  this  ordi- 
nance, which,  in  one  short  sentence,  he 
twice  over  calls  "  baptism  ?"  He  says,  "It 
is  not  sprinkling."  What  is  not  sprink- 
ling ?  "  It  " — the  ordinance,  which  he 
says  is  haptism^  is  not  sprinkling.  Yery 
well,  then  ;  if  the  ordinance,  which  is  bap- 
tism, is  not  sprinkling,  as  it  certainly  is 
not,  sprinkling  is  not  baptism.  That  is  as 
certain  as  that  two  and  two  make  four,  or 
as  certain  as  that  if  immersion  is  not 
sprinkling,  sprinkling  is  not  immersion  ; 
or  if  James  is  not  John,  John  is  not  James. 
I  have  not  misrepresented  the  worthy  gen- 
tleman and  will  not. 

Mr.  M.  has  gone  to  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  find  "  a  mode  of  baptism." 
He  has  emphasized  the  words  "  poured 
out  "  and  "  fell  on  them."  But  do  these 
terms  mean  haptism  ?  We  must  not  be 
misled  b}^  the  jingle  of  words.  There  are 
two  things  to  be  looked  into  here  :  1st,  Who 
were  baptized  ?  2nd,  What  was  poured  out  ? 
The  word  "  poured,"  does  not  mean  bap- 
tism, for  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  out^ 
and  not  the  people.  The  Holy  Spirit  was 
not  baptized,  but  the  people  were.  The 
gentleman's  effort  to  stigmatize  my   posi- 


388  DEBATE   ON  THE 

tion  with  materialiBm,  because  I  believe 
tbcy  were  immersed  in  the  Holy  S^^irit,  is 
as  much  against  the  plain  language  of 
Scripture  as  against  me.  He  can  say  as 
many  and  as  fine  things  about  the  material- 
istic view  of  the  Spirit  being  poured  out  as 
he  can  of  being  immersed  in  the  Sj)irit.  The 
idea  of  persons  being  immersed  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or  overwhelmed  in  it,  is  no 
more  materialistic  than  the  idea  of  the 
S2)irit  heing  ijourcd  out.  There  is  nothing 
materialistic  in  either.  The  true  state  of 
the  case  was,  that  the  Spirit  was  poured 
out,  but  the  pouring  out  was  not  baptism, 
or  the  Spirit  was  baptized.  The  pouring 
out,  then,  was  not  baptizing,  as  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out,  and  not  baptized,  but  like 
the  rain  pouring  out  and  filling  some 
phxce  to  baptize  in,  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting.  It  was  not 
merely  the  sound  that  filled  the  house.  It 
was  the  Spirit  that  was  "poured  out," 
"  shed  forth  "  and  "fell  on  them" — was  it 
not?  The  Bible  says  it  was.  It  saj'S, 
"  He  hath  shed  forth  this  which  you  now 
see  and  hear^  What  was  it  that  was  shed 
forth^  which  they  saiv  and  heard  ?  It  was 
the  Spirit.  To  raise  a  dispute  about  the 
sound  is  as  unworthy  as  if  I  should  say  it 
was  not  Mr.  Merrill  you  heard,  but  the 
sound  of  his  voice.  It  is  true,  they  heard 
a  sound  from  heaven,  but  it  is  equally  true 
that  they  heard  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
made  the  sound.     The  Spirit  was  the  au- 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  389 

thor  of  the  sound,  of  the  tongues,  the  gifts 
bestowed  and  the  words  uttered,  and  those 
who  saw  the  figurative  representation  of 
the  tongues,  heard  the  sound  and  the  words 
uttered — smv  and  heard  the  Spirit,  who 
showed  himself  in  gifts  and  tongues  visible, 
and  made  himself  audible  in  a  mighty 
sound,  as  of  a  rushing  wind.  The  Spirit, 
then,  who  was  heard  in  the  sound,  seen  in 
the  tongues  and  understood  by  the  words 
uttered  to  be  present,  filled  the  house,  and 
thus  overwhelmed  them. 

The  worthy  gentleman  talked  so  smooth- 
ly and  prettily  about  Cornelius  being 
baptized  in  his  house,  that  I  suppose  that 
those  who  have  not  thought  particularly 
on  the  subject,  felt  no  doubt  that  it  was 
clearly  stated  that  Cornelius  was  baptized 
in  the  house.  But  there  is  not  a  word  of 
the  kind  in  the  whole  history  of  the  case. 
Mr.  M.  is  not  to  infer,  because  the  histo- 
rian did  not  tell  us  wliere  he  was  baptized, 
that  it  was  in  the  house,  and  then  build  an 
argument  upon  that  inference.  This  is 
taking  a  little  too  much  for  granted.  We 
take  nothing  for  granted  in  debate. 

I  confess  that  1  was  no  little  suprised  to 
hear  Mr.  M.  turn  the  question,  "  Can  any 
man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized  who  have  received  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  well  as  we?"  into  the  mere  ques- 
tion, "  Will  some  one  be  so  good  ,as  to 
bring  a  little  water?"  This  caps  the  cli- 
max !   "  The  question  was  about  obstacles." 


390  DEBATE   ON  THE 

Yes  ;  but  not  the  frivolous  obstacle  arising 
for  the  want  of  a  bowl  of  water,  nor  a  river 
of  water.  But  the  obstacle  the  Apostle 
was  inquiring  into  was  something  tran- 
scendently  greater  than  that.  It  was  the 
question  about  receiving  the  Gentiles,  and 
no  question  upon  the  insignificant  subjects 
of  removing  the  people  to  the  water,  nor 
bringing  water  to  the  people.  Peter  had 
to  be  convinced  himself  that  it  was  right 
to  receive  the  G-entiles  into  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.  The  miracle  was  to  convince  the 
Jews  that  G-od  was  willing  to  receive  the 
Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews.  Hence,  Pe- 
ter, in  his  aj)ology  for  receiving  them, 
when  he  returned  to  his  Jewish  brethren, 
said,  "  Forasmuch,  then,  as  God  gave  them 
the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us,  who  believed 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I  that 
I  could  withstand  God."  It  is  trulj''  a 
likely  affair,  that  after  Cornelius  had 
prayed  in  his  house,  seen  an  angel,  sent 
some  forty  miles  for  a  man  to  tell  him 
words  whereby  he  should  be  saved,  and 
had  received  Peter  so  cordially — it  is,  I  say,. 
a  likely  affair,  that  Peter  should  start  a 
grave  question  about  a  bowl  of  water,  and 
argue  as  a  reason  why  he  should  have  it, 
that  the  Gentiles  had  received  the  Holy 
Spirit.  His  question  was  of  transcendently 
more  importance  than  that.  There  is  not 
a  syllable  in  the  history  of  the  case  of  their 
being  baptized  in  the  house,  going  to  the 
water,  or  bringing  water  to  them.  All 
this  is  simply  imaginary  with  my  friend. 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  391 

The  gentleman  made  another  draw  upon 
his  imagination,  and  fancied  that  Saul  was 
unquestionably  baptized  in  the  house^  and 
baptized  standing  up^  about  which  there  is 
not  one  word  in  the  sacred  history.  As 
the  historian  does  not  say  where  he  was 
baptized,  Mr.  M.  infers  that  he  was  bap- 
tized in  the  house,  where  Ananias  first 
found  him;  and  from  the  words,  "Arise  and 
be  baptized,"  he  infers  that  he  was  baptized 
standing.  Full  of  learning,  he  proves  that 
he  was  baptized  standing,  from  the  Greek 
anastas,  rendered  "  arise."  Anisteemi,  like 
our  English  word  arise,  was  used  to  ex- 
l^ress  the  first  move  when  starting  to  do 
any  thing,  without  expressing  any  thing  of 
the  posture  of  the  body  when  doing  it. 
When  the  command  came  to  Peter,  Acts  x. 
20:  "  Arise,  therefore,  and  get  thee  down," 
he  was  required  to  get  down  standing,  I  sup- 
pose !  He  could  not  get  down  without 
arising,  but  the  arising  was  when  starting, 
and  certainly  not  when  getting  down.  But 
in  the  case  of  Saul,  there  was  no  need  of 
the  coinmand  to  arise  to  be  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon.  This  could  have  been  done 
when  he  was  sitting,  as  well  as  for  him  to 
arise;  but  Ananias  intended  to  immerse 
him,  and  this  he  could  not  do  without  his 
arising.  From  the  picture  Mr.  M.  drew  of 
Saul's  feebleness,  owing  to  his  fasting  and 
anxiety,  as  a  reason  why  he  could  not 
have  gone  out  to  be  baptized,  one  would 
almost  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he 


392  DEBATE    ON   THE 

could  not  have  stood  up.  But  this  was  a 
little  too  small.  It  was  certainly  not  de- 
signed for  enlightened  people. 

We  go  with  the  gentleman  into  the  des- 
ert, to  where  the  Scripture  says,  of  Philip 
and  the  eunuch,  "  they  came  unto  a  certain 
water."     In  order  to  make  it   out   of  the 
question  for  the  nobleman  to  have  been  im- 
mersed, the  gentleman  undertakes  to  prove 
that  the  "  certain  water"  that  they   came 
to,  was  so  small  that  a  man  could  not   be 
immersed  in  it.     Colton's  Universal  Atlas, 
the  fullest  and  most  modern  and  reliable  of 
any  ever  published,  represents  "  a  certain 
water  "  to  rise  a  little  south  of  Jerusalem, 
and  make  its  course  directly   on   towards 
Graza,  till  within  a  few  miles  of  it,  and  then 
running    a    northwesterly    course    to    the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  at  Askelon.     Now  the 
idea  of  this  water,  more  than  one   hundred 
miles  in  length,  according  to  Colton's  scale 
of  distances,  not  having  water  to  immerse 
a  man  in,  is  preposterous.     There  are  thou- 
sands of  brooks,  where  no  water  appears  on 
the  map  at  all,    amply   sufficient   for    im- 
mersion.    The    gentleman    gives    us    the 
Greek  elthon    epi   ti   hudor,    and    refers    to 
where  the  particle  tis  is  translated  "  man  " 
(John  iii.  5),  and  informs  you  that  I  said  it 
is  properly  translated  man.     Did  he  deny 
it  ?     If  he  does,  I  will  supply  him  with   a 
few   examples.     Did   he    deny   that    it    is 
properly  rendered   certain  (Acts  viii.   26)  ? 
He  did  not,  and,  I  think,  will  not.     Did  he 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  393 

deny  that  eis  is  correctly  translated  in  the 
phrase,  "  they  both  went  down  into  the 
water  ?"  He  did  not.  Did  he  deny  that 
ek  is  correctly  translated  in  the  phrase, 
"come  up  out  of  the  water?"  He  did  not. 
What  did  he  deny  then  ?  ISTothing  only 
the  word  "  wade,"  in  my  language,  in  de- 
scribing what  I  thought  was  done.  They 
not  only  went  "into  the  water,"  but  ^Ulown 
into  the  water ;  and  not  only  "  come  out  of 
the  water,"  but  "come  iq?  out  of  the  water" 
— small  a  water  as  it  was.  They  "  came 
unto  a  certain  water,"  first.  This  was  at  it. 
They  then  "  went  down  into  the  water." 
"  He  baptized  him."  They,  then,  "  come 
ujy  out  of  the  water."  Here  is  an  end  to  all 
caviling.  ]^o  matter  how  tis  may  be 
translated  in  other  places.  He  has  not  de- 
nied that  it  is  correctly  translated  here, 
nor  told  us  how  it  should  be  translated. 

The  word  haptizo  does  not  mean  ordi- 
nance,  but  immerse^  and,  consequently, 
wherever  there  is  a  hajytism,  there  is  an  im- 
mersion,  but  not  necessarily  an  ordinance. 
To  constitute  the  divine  rite,  or  ordinance, 
there  must  be  a  proper  subject  immersed 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  IsTo  man  ever 
was  authorized  to  administer  sprinkling,  as 
a  religious  rite,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  SIXTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  Respected  Hearers  : 

After  the   night's  refreshment,  the  gen- 
tleman   endeavored    to   give   us    a   hasty 


394  DEBATE   ON  THE 

glance  at  the  principal  points  in  which  he 
had  fallen  behind  on  yesterday — evidently 
indulging  the  hope  that  inasmuch  as  he 
has  advanced  his  affirmative  arguments, 
and  whipped  round  uj^on  the  negative,  he 
will  be  able  to  notice  slightly  what  I  may 
advance  against  his  exclusive  proposition. 
He  takes  great  pains  to  tell  you  that  I 
have  done  nothing,  affirmed  nothing,  and 
proven  nothing  !  He  certainly  feels  it  im- 
portant to  tell  this.  Were  he  not  to  repeat 
it  over  and  over,  the  audience  would  un- 
doubtedly come  to  a  different  conclusion. 
He  must  still  charge  me  with  seeking  a 
negative  position  from  considerations  of 
prudence  !  I  will  only  remark  that  when 
I  take  a  position  in  debate,  whether  affir- 
mative or  negative,  you  will  never  find  me 
whining  about  it  afterwards. 

I  am  sorry  to  find  my  worthy  friend  still 
unable  to  comprehend  my  position,  or  to 
give  a  correct  representation  of  my  argu- 
ments. I  thought  the  exj^osures  of  his 
j)erversions,  given  in  my  last  speech,  would 
cause  him  to  become  a  little  more  cautious; 
but  he  has  given  us  another  dish  of  pretty 
much  the  same  sort.  1  shall  not,  hereaf- 
ter, be  very  careful  to  point  out  his  errors 
in  this  respect ;  for  I  have  reason  to  know 
that  the  intelligent  hearer  will  detect  his 
misrepresentations,  and  appreciate  them 
fully.  The  gentleman  intimated  that  I 
have  been  "  excited  !"  What  does  the  man 
mean  ?     Does   he  think   the  peoj^le   here 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  395 

have  no  discernment  at  all?  'No,  sir  !  The 
trouble  with  the  gentleman  is,  that  I  will 
not  become  excited.  It  is  not  in  his  power 
either  to  excite,  confuse,  or  alarm  me !  His 
attempts  in  that  direction  will  all  prove 
unavailing,  as  heretofore. 

His  attempt  to  mend  up  his  argument 
from  the  expression  "born  of  water,"  Avas 
a  decided  failure.  He  pretends  that  there 
were  two  distinct  births  mentioned.  Did 
he  prove  it?  He  did  not.  Did  he  show 
the  relation  of  the  water  to  the  Spirit?  He 
did  not.  Dare  he  come  out  plainly  and 
deny  tliat  the  water  rejiresents  the  Spirit? 
Perhaps  he  may,  but  I  think  not.  What  if 
"  born  of  water  "  does  mean  baptism,  does 
not  baptism  represent  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit?  Was  he  not  "adroit "in  saj'ing 
"  born  of  the  Spirit,"  represents  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit?  Is  "born  of  the  Spirit" 
to  be  considered  an  emblem  of  water  bap- 
tism ?  My  friend's  theology  would  lead  to 
this  conclusion  !  The  truth  is,  he  does  not 
understand  the  passage.  There  is  one  in- 
ward, spiritual  efl'ect,  represented  by  an 
outward,  visible  ordinance;  and  the  leading 
thought  is  that  of  the  beginning  of  a  new 
life,  on  which  account  the  metaphor  is  em- 
ployed by  which  the  spiritual  efl'ect  is 
called  a  "  birth."  The  allusion  is  not  to 
the  manner  of  a  birth,  and  hence  not  to 
the  manner  of  baptism.  My  friend  utterly 
fails  to  find  the  mode  of  baptism  here.  I 
found  no  "  immodesty "  in  the   metaphor 


396  DEBATE   ON   THE 

ilself,  but  only  in  thd  gentleman's  vulgar 
exposition  of  it. 

In  his  notice  of  my  reply  to  his  argument 
founded  on  "planting,"  he  can  see  nothing 
but  " ridicule  "  and  "slang!"  Why  did 
he  not  take  hold  of  my  exposition  of  the 
passage,  and  show  its  incorrectness  ?  For 
the  best  reason  in  the  world — he  could  not ! 
It  was  easier  to  seize  upon  an  incidental 
remark  and  call  it  "  slang."  I  told  him 
plainly  what  the  language  of  Paul  means, 
and  now  instead  of  noticing  my  explana- 
tion, he  asks  again  what  it  means  !,  I  ask 
again  if  it  alludes  to  the  mode  of  baptism 
any  more  than  the  word  "crucified,"  found 
in  the  next  verse  does?  " Buried  "  is  not 
baptism,  "  planted  "  is  not  baptism,  "  cru- 
cified "  is  not  baptism  ;  but  all  these  are 
metaphors  pointing  to  a  moral  effect  of  the 
Spirit's  influence — and  inasmuch  as  bap- 
tism is  the  ordained  emblem  of  the  Spirit's 
work,  that  eifect,  set  forth  in  these  three 
metaphors,  is  ascribed  to  baptism.  The 
mode  of  baptism  is  not  alluded  to  in  any 
one  of  these  metaphors. 

I  showed  that  the  gentleman's  proof- text 
which  contains  the  exj^ression,  "  Having 
our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science, and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water,"  has  no  allusion  to  baptism  ;  and 
how  does  he  reply  ?  He  gives  us  his  own 
declaration  that  it  does  allude  to  baptism, 
and  makes  quite  an  ado  over  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Wesley  said  of  buried  in  baptism^  that 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  397 

it  was  as  much  an  allusion  to  tlie  manner 
of  baptizing   by   immersion,  as   the  other 
manner  of  baptizing  by  siDrinkling  or  pour- 
ing water  is   alluded   to   in   Heb.  x.  22.     I 
freely  admit  that   one   passage   alludes  to 
the  manner  of  baptizing  just   as  much  as 
the  other.     But  neither  of  them   contains 
the  least  allusion  to  the  mode  of  baptism  at 
all.     Here  is  Mr.  Wesley's  comment  on  the 
clause   on  which  my  friend   relies :  "  And 
our  bodies    washed  ivith  pure  water — All   our 
conversation    spotless   and  holy,  which   is 
far  more  acceptable  to  God  than  all  the  le- 
gal sprinklings  and  washings.''     The  allu- 
sion  is   to   these    "legal   sprinklings    and 
washings,"  and  Mr.  F.  did  not  venture  to 
deny   it.      These   same   "  sprinklings   and 
washings  "  are  called  diaphorois  haptismois — 
diverse   baptisms — but  the  gentleman  be- 
comes excited  and  terribly  horrified,  when 
I  refer  to  this  fact  as  proof  against  his  po- 
sition, as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word.     He 
knows   some  of  these  baptisms   under  the 
law    were     commanded    to    be    done    by 
"  sprinkling  ;"  and  he  knows,  further,  that 
wherever  the  mode  is  not  specified,  the  ac- 
tion is  expressed   by  a  generic   tvord.     This 
fact,  which  forever  destroys   his  theory,  he 
has   not   denied,  nor   can    he  deny  it.     He 
says  :  "  Internally,  the  converted  man  has 
had  his  heart   sprinkled   from  an  evil  con- 
science ;    and   externally,    he  has   had    his 
body  ivashed  tvithpure  water.     This  external 
washing  results  irom  immersion  and  noth- 


398  DEBATE   ON  THE 

ing  else."  'Now,  I  have  shown  that  the  al- 
lusion is  not  to  Christian  baptism,  but  to 
Jewish  washings,  and  if  Mr.  F.  would  show 
that  the  Jewish  icasliings  were  by  immersion 
and  nothing  else,  his  j^osition  would  be- 
come plausible  ;  but  he  knows  very  well 
that  he  can  not  do  it,  and  he  will  not  try 
to  do  it. 

But  the  gentleman  is  very  courageous, 
and  yet  extremely  cautious,  in  holding  on 
to  his  argument  from  bax)tizing  in  the  river, 
etc.  He  insists  that  John  could  not  bap- 
tize with  the  river,  loith  Enon,  nor  with  the 
wilderness.  But  let  tiie  gentleman  look 
again.  John  baptized  in  the  river,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  he  baptized  in  the  wil- 
derness. The  preposition  devotes  the  local- 
ity of  the  persons  when  the  ordinance  was 
administered,  but  says  nothing  about  the 
mode,  and  indicates  nothing  about  the 
mode.  There  is  no  question  as  to  the  lo- 
cality  of  the  baptisms,  and  the  argument 
which  he  claims  to  be  untouched,  is  just  no 
argument  at  all.  By  the  way,  my  remark 
touching  en,  was  with  respect  to  what  he 
said  of  baptizing  in  water.  And  he  still 
persists  that  the  translators  of  the  Bible 
■were  poor,  ignorant,  obscure,  dishonest 
creatures,  unknown  and  unworthy  to  be 
known  !  And  he — yes,  he  is  competent  to 
23ronounce  upon  their  capacity  and  integ- 
rity !     Shame !  ! 

The  baptism  of  sufferings  was  the  next 
point  the  gentleman   on    the    affirmative 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  399 

mentioned.     Here  he  finds  the  noun,   and, 
seemingly,  denies  that  it  is  the  name  of  an 
ordinance  !     But  he  is  careful,  in   denying 
this,  to  specify  places  where  the  word   oc- 
curs with  reference  to  other  things  than  the 
ordinance.     But  will   he   come   right    out 
and  deny  the  plain  proposition  that  haptis- 
mos  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  name  of  an 
ordinance  ?     I  ask  not  for  the  definition  of 
the  word,  nor  for  its  other  uses  and  appli- 
cations, but  is  it,  or  is  it  not,  the  name   of 
the  ordinance  ?     I  do  not  regard  the  ques- 
tion as  of  much  importance  in   itself,    but 
this  shuffling  and  quibbling  about  it  needs 
to  be  brought  to  a  close.     In  the   case   of 
the  baptism  of  sufferings,  there  was  no  or- 
dinance ;  there  was  a  metaphorical  use   of 
the  term  that  indicates  nothing  whatever 
that  can  have  any  tendency  to  decide   the 
issue  before  us ;  there  is  in  it  no  allusion  to 
the  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance  at 
all.     Then,  I  ask  again,  what  does  he   ex- 
pect to  prove  by  this  metaphorical  use  of 
the  word? 

The  gentleman  insists  that  I  have  no  po- 
sition, and  proceeds  to  fix  up  several  posi- 
tions for  me.  He  finds  it  easier  to  make 
and  beat  down  false  positions,  than  to  meet 
and  answer  my  real  positions.  When  did 
I  say  "  the  mode  is  not  sprinkling,  pouring, 
nor  immersion,  as  such,  but  baptism  ?" 
IS^ever  in  this  world  !  Were  it  not  for  his 
confusion,  I  should  be  utterly  unable  to 
reconcile   this    statement    with    Christian 

27 


400  DEBATE    ON   THE 

candor  and  honesty.  By  adroitly  substi- 
tuting "  the  mode^'^  for  "  the  ordinance  call- 
ed 'initiatory,' "  he  makes  out  this  false 
charge.  And  this  is  a  specimen  of  the 
"  positions  "  he  fixes  uj)  for  me,  and  sets 
out  in  numerical  order  !  Perhaps  the  au- 
dience will  take  his  statements  for  my  posi- 
tions !  And  perhaps  they  may  desire  proof. 
And  he  is  the  man  who  talks  about  sooth- 
ing the  conscience  in  pliable  theology  !  I 
would  say  to  him  that  modesty  is  a  real 
virtue.  I  feel  no  disposition  to  reply  to 
any  of  his  attempts  to  torture  the  "  cor- 
respondence." He  is  now  welcome  to  all 
the  capital  he  is  able  to  make  by  this 
means.  I  am  not  at  all  "sensitive"  about  it. 
He  alluded  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  evidently  felt  that  he  was  tread- 
ing on  dangerous  ground.  JVIy  argument 
was,  that  the  same  specific  action  of  the  Spirit^ 
is  in  one  place  called  a  baptisjn,  aiid  in  an- 
other a  pouring  out.  Did  he  so  much  as  no- 
tice this  argument  ?  He  did  not,  and  I  do 
not  expect  him  so  much  as  to  appreciate  it. 
He  says  the  people  were  not  "  poured  !" 
Wonderful  I  But  were  they  not  baptized 
by  the  Spirit,  when  it  was  poured  out  upon 
them?  If  so,  the  pouring  out  expresses 
the  baptism.  The  generic  haptizo  is  in  the 
promise,  and  the  specific  poz^r  is  in  the  ful- 
fillment. But  now  for  Mr.  Franklin's  ma- 
terialism. He  says  the  Spirit,  "  like  the 
rain  pouring  out  and  filling  some  place  to 
haptize  in,  filled  all  the  house  where   they 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  401 

were  sitting."  And  just  here  he  saw  the 
difficulty.  There  is  not  a  word  said  about 
the  Spirit  filling  a  place  to  baptize  m,  nor  is 
there  a  word  said  about  any  baptism  after 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit !  It  was  the 
"  sound  "  that  filled  the  house,  and  not  the 
Spirit.  This  the  gentleman  sees  and  tries 
to  obviate  by  saying  that  to  raise  a  dispute 
about  the  "sound  "  is  unworthy,  etc.;  and 
I  wonder  not  that  he  is  anxious  to  stave  off 
an  investigation  of  this  point — but  he  must 
face  it !  The  sound  is  the  Spirit,  he  would 
have  us  believe  ;  but  this  is  absurd.  And 
he  concedes  it  tu  be  absurd ;  for  he  says 
"  the  Spirit  made  the  sound."  The  all  per- 
vading Spirit  of  Grod,  in  an  important 
sense,  fills  all  things  ;  but  here  is  a  special 
manifestation  spoken  of.  The  p7'esence  of 
the  Spirit  was  symbolized  by  the  tongues 
of  fire.  These  did  not  overwhelm  the 
people,  nor  fill  all  the  house,  like  rain  filling 
the  pool ;  but  they  sat  upon  the  heads  of 
the  Apostles.  This  action  of  the  fire  is 
called  a  baptism  ;  and  this  extraordinary 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  called  a  bap- 
tism; but  in  neither  instance  is  the  idea  of 
immersion  expressed,  implied,  hinted  at,  or 
at  all  admissable.  And  that  the  idea  ad- 
vanced by  the  gentleman  in  regard  to  the 
Spirit  filling  a  place  to  baptize  in,  is  pure 
materialism,  needs  no  proof.  But  he 
thinks  the  same  difficulty  attaches  itself  to 
the  scriptural  language  of  pouring  out  the 
Spirit.     Not  at  all.     The  Spirit  is  said   to 


402  DEBATE   ON   THE 

be  poured  out,  not  because  there  is  a  literal 
pouring  out  like  water,  but  because  its  in- 
fluence is  represented  by  the  pouring  of 
water  ;  and  this  proves  that  pouring  water 
represents  the  baj)tism  of  the  Spirit  as  con- 
clusively as  if  the  Spirit  were  itself  literally 
poured  in  the  action  of  baj^tisni  by  it.  Here 
the  gentleman  lies  j)rostrate  at  my  feet. 
And  did  you  notice  how  he  skipped  the 
baptism  by  fire  ?  Then  the  baptisms  of 
Saul  and  Cornelius  were  glanced  at.  He 
thinks  I  drew  upon  "imagination"  to  learn 
that  Saul  was  baptized  in  the  house  !  But 
do  we  not  find  him  in  the  house  when 
commanded  to  be  baptized  ?  And  does 
he  not  draw  upon  his  imagination,  and 
upon  nothing  else,  in  order  to  get  him 
out  of  the  house?  And  does  it  not 
devolve  on  him  to  prove  that  he  left 
the  house  before  being  baptized?  The 
circumstances  narrated  are  all  against  the 
supposition  that  he  left  the  house  to  be 
baptized,  and  my  friend  can  not  dodge  the 
issue  by  imagining  that  he  left,  when  he 
ought  to  prove  it.  "What  if  he  could  be 
sprinkled  without  standing  up — does  that 
prove  that  he  would  not  stand  up  in  order 
to  receive  the  ordinance  by  affusion  ?  And 
where  is  there  any  thing  said  or  intimated 
about  Cornelius,  and  those  who  were  with 
him,  leaving  the  house?  Did  not  the  gentle- 
man draw  upon  his  imagination  in  this  case? 
Truly  the  Apostle  was  about  to  receive  the 
Gentiles  into  fellowship  with  the  church, 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  403 

contrary  to  his  former  prejudices,  but  this 
was  settled  in  his  mind  by  the  vision  which 
he  had  seen,  and  by  the  manifestation  of 
the  Spirit.  When  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon 
the  G-entiles,  Peter  was  fully  convinced 
that  they  ought  to  be  baptized  with  water. 
But  the  water  was  not  present.  It  must  be 
brought.  Hence  he  spoke  of  a  possible 
prohibition  on  the  water.  He  made  no  in- 
quiry as  to  the  propriety  of  baptizing  them. 
They  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that 
was  enough  for  him.  He  then  called  for 
the  water,  and  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized. That  is  the  history  of  the  case,  and 
it  remains  for  Mr.  P.  to  imagine  that  they 
left  the  house.  These  plain  cases  of  the 
New  Testament  are  against  my  friend. 

And  so  is  the  case  of  the  Philippian  Jail- 
or. I  appeal  to  this  baptism  with  much 
confidence.  The  circumstances  brought  to 
light  preclude  the  idea  of  immersion.  Let 
us  look  at  them :  1st,  Paul  and  Silas  were 
committed  to  prison  under  a  strict  charge 
that  they  be  kept  safely.  2nd,  Under  the 
influence  of  that  charge  the  Jailor  "thrust 
them  into  the  inner  prison."  3rd,  They 
sang  and  prayed  at  midnight  until  the 
earthquake  occurred,  and  the  prison  doors 
were  opened.  4th,  The  Jailor  awoke  from 
sleep,  and  was  alarmed.  Supposing  the 
prisoners  were  fled,  he  was  about  to  kill 
himself,  so  as  to  avoid  a  public  execution. 
Paul  saw  him  get  his  sword,  and  cried  out 
to  him  to  desist,  informing  him  that  they 


404  DEBATE   ON   THE 

were  all  there.  6th,  He  called  for  a  light, 
and  sprang  in,  and  inquired  what  he  should 
do.  7th,  He  washed  their  stripes,  and  was 
immediately^  baptized,  he  and  all  his  house- 
hold (Acts  xvii.  20-40).  Here,  again,  my 
friend  must  resort  to  "  imagination,"  in  or- 
der to  get  the  Jailor,  all  his  household  and 
the  prisoners  out  of  the  house,  and  away 
in  search  of  water,  at  midnight,  in  open 
violation  of  law,  and  at  the  peril  of  the  life 
of  the  Jailor!  The  only  hypothesis  that 
will  meet  all  the  facts  developed,  and  ex- 
plain the  circumstances  named,  in  a  per- 
fectly natural  way,  is  that  the  house  occu- 
pied by  the  Jailor,  and  the  prison,  both 
outer  and  inner,  were  all  under  the  same 
roof.  Hence  Paul  could  see  out  of  his  dun- 
geon into  the  apartment  of  the  Jailor,  and 
discover  his  motions,  while  the  Jailor  could 
not  see  into  the  dungeon  so  as  to  discover 
the  prisoners.  AVhcn  the  Jailor  sprang  in, 
it  was  into  the  "inner  prison;"  and  when 
he  brought  them  out,  it  was  out  of  the  "  in- 
ner prison ;"  and  not  out  of  the  prison 
building ;  and  when  they  were  owi,  they 
were  not  out  of  the  building,  but  out  of  the 
"  inner  prison,"  and,  consequently,  in  an- 
other apartment^  which  we  may  call  an  outer 
prison.  This  was,  doubtless,  between  the 
part  of  the  building  occupied  by  the  Jailor 
and  family,  and  that  called  the  "  inner 
prison."  Here  the  stripes  of  the  prisoners 
were  washed.  There  was,  therefore,  some 
water  present  j  for  no  doubt  the  Jailor  was 


ACTION   OP    BAPTISM.  405 

exceedingly  tender  and  careful  in  bathing 
the  lacerated  backs  of  these  men  of  God,  as 
he  now  knew  them  to  be.  And  if  the  his- 
tory is  accurate,  we  must  believe  that  right 
here — not  out  of  the  building,  but  out  of 
the  family  residence,  and  out  of  the  "inner 
prison  " — the  baptism  was  administered. 
But  if  so,  there  was  no  immersion.  My 
friend  may  ^^ imagine"  them  all  out  of  the 
building,  and  away  in  search  of  a  river, 
but  let  him  prove  it  if  he  is  able.  The 
plain,  untortured  narrative,  is  directly 
against  him, 

ISTow  to  Philip  and  the  nobleman  in  the 
desert  again.  My  friend  exhibits  a  want 
of  acquaintance  with  the  j^hysical  geogra- 
phy of  Palestine,  that  is  truly  astonishing. 
He  speaks  of  a  "certain  water"  rising  a 
"  little  south  of  Jerusalem,"  and  running 
towards  Gaza,  and  emptying  into  the  Medi- 
terranean near  Askelon !  JSTow,  does  not 
almost  every  school-boy  know  that  a 
stream  running,  as  he  says,  would  have  to 
cross  a  large  range  of  mountains  ?  Water 
rising  south  of  Jerusalem  runs  into  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  not  into  the  Mediterranean. 
And  is  it  not  true  that  most  of  the  streams 
that  find  a  place  in  the  maps,  are  nothing 
more  than  wet  weather  branches?  This  is 
proven  beyond  all  doubt.  No,  sir;  the 
gentleman  has  not  found  the  stream  of 
sufficient  capacity  to  immerse  the  man  in, 
and  he  can  not  find  it,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  it  is  not  there.     The  little  branch  that 


406  DEBATE   ON  THE 

empties  into  the  Mediterranean  was  that 
little  brook  Sorek,  on  which  lived  the 
woman  whom  Samson  admired  too  much  ; 
but  it  was  only  a  spring  branch,  and  did 
not  cross  the  mountains,  as  my  friend's 
atlas  would  have  us  believe. 

But  he  wishes  to  know  what  I  denied 
respecting  the  prepositions  eis  and  ek,  trans- 
lated into  and  out  of.  I  denied  that  they 
necessarily  imply  or  express  an  entrance 
into  the  water — and  I  proved  it  too  !  Now 
he  relies  upon  the  words  dozen  and  up,  to 
help  him  along  with  his  difficult  task. 
They  went  down — yes,  down,  from  where? 
Why,  from  the  chariot.  And  they  ascended 
from  the  water.  Does  this  doivn  and  up 
prove  that  one  or  the  other  was  lying  down 
and  had  to  be  raised  up  ?  Not  at  all ;  for 
they  both  went  down,  and  they  both  icent 
up.  But  no  one  presumes  that  Philip  was 
down  in  a  horizontal  position.  The  gentle- 
man denies  relying  upon  the  mere  "jingle" 
of  the  words,  in  this  case,  but  it  is  quite 
evident  that  he  has  nothing  else  to  rely 
upon.  I  gave  examples  of  the  use  of  these 
prepositions  where  an  entrance  was  not 
expressed,  but  positively  denied.  Did  the 
gentleman  show  you  the  difference  in  the 
passages,  or  wherein  the  examples  adduced 
differ  from  that  before  us?  Does  he  affirm 
that  eis  necessarily  expresses  an  entrance 
into  the  water?  Has  he  become  so  disgust- 
ed with  the  affirmative  of  this  proposition 
that  he  has  forgotten  where  he  stands  ?    I 


ACTION  OF   BAPTISM.  407 

wish  to  remind  him  that,  however  reluc- 
tantly, he  is,  nevertheless,  on  the  affirma- 
tive, and  has  something  to  do  more  than 
to  assert  and  deny — more  than  to  threaten 
me  with  examples  and  proofs  of  his  posi- 
tion, on  condition  that  I  will  do  thus  and  so. 
I  am  here  to  follow  him,  and  to  examine 
his  arguments,  and  I  intend  that  not  one 
of  them  shall  escape  notice.  I  have,  in 
this  debate,  as  many  affirmatives  as  he,  and 
as  much  time  to  spend  upon  them.  I 
make  no  complaint  of  this,  and  I  regret 
that  my  friend  occupies  his  position  so  re- 
luctantly. But  he  has  pledged  himself  to 
it,  and  his  friends  will  expect  him  to  lead 
the  way  fearlessly. 

He  has  attempted  to  show  that  my  posi- 
tion is  self-contradictory  in  asserting  that 
the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  revealed  and 
that  it  is  revealed  !  This  is  all  gratuitous. 
My  position  has  been  from  the  start  that 
the  mode  is  not  definitely  defined  or  pre- 
scribed in  the  Scriptures,  and  yet  that  we 
are  not  left  in  the  dark  in  relation  to  it.  I 
plant  myself  upon  the  broad  ground  of 
revelation,  and  affirm  that  the  definite 
mode  of  baptism  is  not  clearly  set  forth ; 
but  that  we  must  learn  what  it  is  from  the 
Bible  use  of  the  word,  and  from  the  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  administration, 
together  with  its  symbolic  import  and  de- 
sign. In  all  this  there  is  nothing  even 
paradoxical.  It  is  the  truth  in  relation  to 
the  case,  the  whole  truth,  and   nothing  but 


408  DEBATE    ON   THE 

the  truth.  I  admit  immersion  to  be  valid, 
because  it  is  not  forbidden,  and  because  an- 
other mode  is  not  so  strictly  enjoined  as  to 
be  essential  to  the  ordinance.  And  it  is 
fortunate  for  the  gentleman  that  I  admit 
this — for  if  I  did  not,  he  evidently  would 
be  troubled  to  prove  it.  He  has  utterly 
failed  to  make  out  one  clear  case  of  immer- 
sion. He  has  failed  to  show  that  hapto  is  a 
specific  term,  expressive  of  mode,  much 
less  can  he  show  this  in  regard  to  baptizo. 
The  figure  of  being  "  born  of  water  "  lends 
him  no  countenance,  and  that  other  figure 
of  a  "  burial"  eflfected  by  baptism,  has  been 
taken  entirely  out  of  his  hands.  What 
then  has  he  to  stand  upon  ?  Nothing  but 
his  bare  assertions,  and  the  mere  ^'jingle" 
of  a  few  scriptural  words  and  phrases,  to- 
gether with  an  association  of  ideas  arising 
from  modern  customs  !  But  he  may  insist 
that  I  have  not  noticed  the  expression 
"  buried  in  baptism,"  found  in  Col.  ii.  12. 
The  idea  is  not  baptized  in  baptism,  nor 
buried  in  burial,  nor  immersed  in  immer- 
sion ;  hence,  the  burial  is  not  the  baptism. 
It  is  the  moral  efl:ect  represented  by  bap- 
tism. That  the  burial  is  not  a  literal 
burial  in  water,  is  evident  from  the  rising 
expressed.  "Wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God."  Do  men  rise  thus  from  the 
water  when  literally  buried  or  immersed? 
Such  rise  not  "through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  Gfod,"  but  through  the  physi- 


ACTION   OP   BAPTIS3I.  409 

cal  strength  of  the  administrator's  arm  ! 
The  burial  is  a  metaphorical  expression, 
jiointing  not  to  the  mode,  but  to  the  moral 
result  attributed  to  baptism.  I  care  not 
what  Wesley,  or  any  other  uninspired  man, 
says  on  this  point.  I  take  only  the  lan- 
guage of  holy  writ.  If  my  interpretation 
is  wrong,  let  my  friend  show  it.  He  is  not 
debating  with  any  one  but  your  humble 
servant.  The  moral  effect  denoted  by  the 
burial  is  not  momentary,  but  continuous. 
Hence  the  burial  is  not  momentary — not 
past,  but  present  and  continuous.  And 
now  I  appeal  to  the  gentleman  to  give  his 
authority  for  making  baptism  emblematic 
of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Where  is  his  authority  for  plac- 
ing baptism  where  the  Scriptures  place 
the  Lord's  supper  ?  Why  will  he  not  look 
at  the  legal  and  moral  features  of  the  Chris- 
tian system  ?  Is  he  not  a  little  timorous 
at  this  point?  Can  he  prove  that  baptism 
has  any  relation  to  the  office  and  work  of 
Christ?  Dare  he  dispute  that  it  relates 
wholly  to  the  office  and  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit?  I  tell  you,  my  friends,  the  gen- 
tleman has  mistaken  the  whole  subject. 
He  has  made  it  a  hobby  for  a  score  of 
years,  without  learning  the  first  principles 
involved  in  the  controversy.  He  begs  the 
question  whenever  he  attempts  proof  from 
the  meaning  of  the  one  word  in  relation  to 
the  one  thing,  and  assumes,  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  all   authorities   in   the  language, 


410  DEBATE   ON   THE 

ihsit  the  first  meaning  of  words  is  always 
the  proper  meaning.  With  such  inaccu- 
racies he  may  succeed  in  satisfying  his 
friends  that  immersion  ivill  do^  but  he  can 
not  convince  any  one  that  it  is  the  only 
baptism  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or  prac- 
ticed by  the  Apostles.  No  wonder  he  "  ut- 
terly refused"  to  debate  the  proposition 
suggested  by  me,  which  sets  forth  his  real 
position  in  an  affirmative  way — that  im- 
mersion is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the 
ordinance  of  Christian  baptism. 

He  has  become  quite  familiar  with  the 
ftible  of  the  rat  and  the  meal,  and  not  only 
quotes  it  flippantly,  but  practices  upon  its 
moral.  And,  like  the  boy  whistling  past 
the  grave  yard,  to  keep  up  his  courage,  or 
to  divert  attention  from  his  fears,  he 
charges  me  with  "  cowardice."  When, 
where,  under  what  circumstances,  have  I 
shown  timorousness  in  this  affair?  A  pretty 
charge,  truly,  to  come  from  Mr.  Franklin  1 
I  heard  enough  of  the  gentleman's  learn- 
ing, and  eloquence,  and  experience,  and 
all  that,  from  his  friends,  while  the  corres- 
pondence was  progressing,  to  almost  fright- 
en a  wooden  man ;  but  when  they  found 
they  could  not  beat  me  off  by  such  boast- 
ings of  his  gigantic  powers,  but  that  they 
must  face  the  music,  then  they  changed 
the  tune  and  said  they  did  not  consider 
him  so  very  smart  after  all !  And  when 
the  gentleman  fails,  as  fail  he  must,  to  sus- 
tain himself,  they  will  still  have  a  resort — 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  411 

he  loill  have  to  hear  the  hlame,  as  not  meet- 
ing the  expectations  of  his  friends !  No, 
sir  ;  I  looked  at  the  position  of  the  man,  as 
chief  editor  of  the  church  organ — a  sort  of 
oracle  amongst  the  brethren,  and  took  it 
for  granted  that  if  he  could  not  sustain 
himself,  the  fault  was  in  the  cause.  This 
was  my  view,  and  it  is  still  my  view. 

Now  I  ask  again,  what  has  he  established? 
What  has  he  been  trying  to  establish?  He 
shrinks  from  a  rigid  examination  of  the 
words  on  which  he  relies,  charging  me 
with  attempts  at  "mystification,"  and 
chooses  to  rely  upon  bold  asseverations. 
He  forsakes  the  ground  of  his  favorite 
critic,  refusing  to  "  walk  out  boldly  "  upon 
it.  He  denounces  my  appeal  to  legal 
washings,  called  baptisms,  and  all  that  be- 
cause, forsooth,  there  is  no  ordinance  in 
the  texts  referred  to  !  Where  is  his  philol- 
ogy? Where  his  criticisms?  Where  his 
logic?  Where  are  his  facts  and  general 
principles?  Where  his  plain  cases  of 
Apostolic  practice  ?  And  finally,  sirs, 
where  is  his  argument?  I  heard  his  asser- 
tions, his  boastings,  his  special  pleadings, 
and  his  complainings — but  who  heard  his 
arguments  ? 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  SEVENTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

My  opponent  is  a  little  dull  of  under- 
standing this  morning.  Sjjeaking  of  my 
remarks,   in   reply  to   him,  on   the   words 


412  DEBATE    ON   THE 

''born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  he  says, 
"  He  pretends  that  there  were  two  distinct 
births  !"  He  did  this  immediately  after 
my  saying,  with  all  possible  distinctness 
and  emphasis,  there  was  "  unquestionably 
but  one  !"  Yet  he  is  not  excited,  and  we 
do  not  "  find  him  whining."  It  is  but  lit- 
tle use  for  me  to  state  my  position  for  his 
benefit,  or  to  answer  his  questions.  He 
asked  me,  on  yesterday,  whether  there 
were  two  births  or  one,  distinctly.  I  an- 
swered him  without  any  hesitation,  or 
equivocation,  "  unquestionably  hut  one. " 
He  rises  right  up,  almost  as  soon  as  the 
words  are  out  of  my  lips,  and  tells  you  that 
I  "  pretend  that  there  were  two  distinct 
births  spoken  of!"  This  is  to  be  put  down, 
not  to  an  intention  to  misrepresent,  but  to 
his  confusion  and  excitement.  "  Born  of 
water,"  is  baptism,  and  "born  of  the 
Spirit, "  represents  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  or  is  the  influence  of  the  Sjoirit  itself. 
There  is  but  one  birth,  "of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit;"  hence  the  word  "born"  only  occurs 
once.  The  one  birth,  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  brings  the  person  into  the  new  state, 
or  into  the  kingdom  ;  and  without  it,  the 
Lord  says  a  man  can  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom.  All  his  talk  about  baptism  rep- 
resenting the  Spirit,  is  without  a  shadow 
of  foundation,  mere  mist  and  sophistry;  and 
if  there  has  been  any  thing  vulgar,  it  was 
in  his  mind  and  not  mine,  nor  in  any  thing 
I  have  said. 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  413 

I  must  attend  to  the  gentleman  a  little 
more  carefully  on  "  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism." He  informs  us  that  "  buried  with 
him  in  baptism,"  and  "  planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death,"  "  are  metaphors 
pointing  to  a  moral  effect  of  the  Spirit's  in- 
fluence ;"  but  where  is  the  proof  of  this  ? 
Did  he  give  any,  or  simply  say  so?  By 
what  rule  of  language,  or  what  kind  of  rea- 
soning, does  he  make  the  simple  expres- 
sions, "buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  and 
"buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death," 
mean  a  metaphor  of  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  ?  It  was  easy  to  say  this,  but  a  more 
unsupported  and  uusupportable  assertion 
can  not  be  uttered.  It  would  have  been 
just  as  audible  to  say  it  meant  any  thing 
else  he  could  have  thought  of.  The  word 
"  baptism"  here,  is  no  metaphor.  It  is  used 
in  its  literal  sense.  The  word  "  buried"  is 
no  metaphor,  but  is  used  in  its  literal  sense. 
The  expressions,  "you  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism,"  and  "  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism," are  as  literal  as  language  can  be  ;  and 
in  this  literal  burial  in  baptism,  we  are  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death.  There  is  nothing 
about  tlie  influence  of  the  S2:)irit  in  this  lan- 
guage ;  but  it  is  a  clear  statement,  as  literal 
as  language  can  be,  that  they  are  buried 
with  him  in  baptism.  There  is  no  such  a 
metaphor  in  tlie  Bible,  as  "  bury,"  to  rep- 
resent the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  The 
word  "  baptize"  is  no  metaphor,  to  repre- 
sent the   Spirit,  in  any  place,  unless  it  bo 


414  DEBATE    ON   THE 

where  it  is  called  "  baptizing  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  and  there  is  nothing  of  that  sort  in 
this  passage.  The  words  "  risen  with  him," 
are  not  used  to  represent  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit,  in  any  place.  A  grander  farce 
could  not  be  invented.  There  is  not  an 
authority  in  the  world  that  makes  the 
words,  "  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,"  a  metaphor,  to  represent  the 
influence  of  the  SjDirit.  The  Sj)irit's  influ- 
ence is  not  represented  by  the  likeness  of 
his  death  ;  but  we  are  planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death,  when  we  are  bu- 
ried with  him  in  baptism,  and  at  no  other 
time. 

One  of  the  weakest  things  I  have  met 
with  in  a  long  time,  was  the  effort  of  Mr. 
M.  to  prove,  from  the  tense,  that  the  burial 
could  not  be  baptism.  In  one  of  his 
speeches  he  quoted  the  words,  "  ice  are 
huried^'^  to  prove  that  we  are  in  that  burial 
yet !  Why  did  he  not  quote  the  words, 
"you  are  baptized,"  or  "  we  are  baptized," 
as  found  in  different  places,  to  prove  that 
we  are  yet  in  baptism?  If  the  words,  "we 
are,"  prove  that  we  are  yet  in  the  burial, 
they  prove  that  we  are  yet  in  the  baptism  ; 
for  we  have  it,  "  we  are  buried  with  him  in 
baptism,"  or,  as  it  is  in  the  other  place, 
"  by  baptism."  This  was,  positively,  one 
of  the  last  of  criticisms!  We  are  buried 
with  him,  proves  that  we  are  yet  in  the 
burial !  Then  it  proves  that  we  are  yet  in 
the  baptism.     This  is  absolutely  too  weak. 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  415 

I  can  not  think  it  needs  any  reply.  If  the 
expressions,  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism," 
and  "  buried  with  him  by  baptism,"  do  not 
show  that  tliey  immersed  anciently,  when 
they  baptized,  no  language  can  show  it. 
Though  Mr.  M.  has  said,  with  so  much  as- 
surance, "  these  expressions  have  no  refer- 
ence to  the  manner  of  baptizing,"  Mr. 
Wesley  says,  on  the  words,  "  we  are  buried 
with  him,"  Eomans  vi.  4  :  "Alluding  to  the 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion, 
that  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory — glorious  power  of  the  Father — 
so  we  also,  by  the  same  power,  should  rise 
again;  and  as  he  lives  a  new  life  in  heaven, 
so  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  This, 
says  the  Apostle,  our  very  baptism  repre- 
sents to  us."  On  the  other  passage,  Col.  ii. 
12,  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  Mr. 
Wesley  has  the  following  :  "  The  ancient 
manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  is  as 
manifestly  alluded  to  here  as  the  other 
manner  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing of  water  is,  Heb.  x.  22."  Mr.  AVesley 
does  not  only,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  M.,  find 
an  allusion  to  the  "manner"  of  baj)tizing, 
or  the  mode^  as  the  latter  calls  it,  but  he 
agrees  with  me  that  the  allusion  is  "to  the 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  im- 
mersion." Has  the  worthy  gentleman 
found  out  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  mistaken  ? 
or  is  he  mistaken  himself?  Re  is  evident- 
ly mistaken,  and  Wesley  right. 

The  gentleman  informed  us,  that  "  John 

28 


416  DEBATE   ON   THE 

baptized  in  the  river^  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  he  baptized  in  the  wilderness^  He 
says,  "  The  preposition  denotes  the  locality 
of  the  persons  Y/hen  they  were  baj)tized." 
Yery  well.  "In  the  wilderness,"  was  not  ai 
it,  nor  with  it,  but,  as  it  is  well  expressed, 
in  it ;  and  "  in  the  river,"  was  not  at  it,  nor 
iDitli  it,  but  "  in  the  river."  This  expresses 
the  locality  where  they  were,  when  they 
were  baptized.  Where  was  that  locality  ? 
or  where  were  they?  They  were  in  the 
river  or  waters  of  Jordan.  They  went 
down  into  the  water,  were  in  the  water 
when  baptized,  and  came  up  out  of  the 
water.  This  was  not  sprinkling  nor  pour- 
ing ;  for  they  would  not  have  gone  down 
into  the  water  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  could 
not  have  sprinkled  in  the  river,  and,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  could  not  have  come  up 
out  of  the  water.  The  worthy  gentleman 
has  become  weary  of  the  sound  and  meaning 
of  both  of  these  expressions.  They  are 
conclusive.  They  did  not  sprinkle  or  pour 
in  Jordan  ;  but  they  did  immerse.  This 
sounds  natural.  They  went  down  into  the 
water,  were  immersed  in  the  river  and  came 
uj)  out  of  I  he  water. 

The  sentence,  that  the  King  James' 
translators  "  were  poor,  ignorant,  obscure, 
dishonest  creatures,  unknown  and  un- 
worthy to  be  known,"  must  be  taken  at  a 
discount,  when  that  description  is  spoken 
for  my  language.  I  accused  them  of  un- 
fairness, and  made  my  specification.     Did 


AC!riON    OF    BAPTISM.  417 

Mr.  M.  invalidate  my  proof,  that  they  were 
unfair  ?  He  did  not.  I  expressed  surprise 
that  he  should  laud  them  as  he  did,  when 
he  could  not  tell  who  they  were,  or  their 
positions  in  the  world.  Did  he  tell  who 
they  were,  or  shoAY  that  he  knew  au}^  thing 
of  consequence  about  them  ?  He  did  not; 
but  performed  the  lighter  task  of  saying 
"  Shame !" 

The  worthy  gentleman  is  in  trouble 
about  the  baptism  of  sufferings,  and  talks 
Avith  great  determination;  but  he  had  as 
Avell  keep  cool,  and  he  will  understand  full 
as  well.  He  has  admitted  that  there  is  no 
sprinkling  nor  pouring  in  the  baptism  of 
sufferings,  but  an  overwhelming.  What 
word  expresses  that  overwhelming  ?  The 
very  word  we  are  in  controversy  about.  It 
expresses  no  name  of  an  ordinance,  and  no 
man  living  can  tell  from  that  word  alone 
whether  there  is  any  ordinance  or  not. 
Here  we  have  baptism  of  sutferings,  or,  as 
he  has  admitted,  an  overwhelming,  but  no 
ordinance.  Has  not  the  gentleman  been 
sufficiently  exposed  in  his  position,  that 
baptism  is  the  proper  name  of  an  ordi- 
nance, without  an  authority  in  the  world 
to  suj)port  him?  He  asked  me  ''^What  of 
hcqjtismosf  in  a  former  speech,  and  I  refer- 
red him  to  the  word,  where  it  was  not  only 
evident  that  it  was  not  the  ordinance,  but 
where  it  is  evident  there  was  no  ordinance. 

Mr.  M.  is  becoming  so  irritable  on  some 
points,  that,  from  sympathy,   1  am  almost 


418  DEBATE   ON   THE 

disposed  to  let  him  pass.  But  I  can  not 
let  him  off  in  denying  that  he  said  the 
mode  is  not  s^orinkling.  AYhy  did  he  not 
meet  my  language  fairly  and  squarely? 
Did  I  not  quote  his  precise  words,  and 
make  out  the  case  clearly?  If  I  did  not, 
no  case  can  be  clearly  made  out.  His 
words  are :  "  The  ordinance  called  '  initi- 
atory,' is  baptism.  It  is  not  sprinkling, 
pouring  nor  immersion,  as  such,  but  bap- 
tism." ]Srow  what  is  it  that  "  is  not  sprink- 
ling,''etc.  ?  Bajytisjn ;  is  it  not?  "Well,  if 
baptism  is  not  sprinkling,  as  he  says,  is  it 
not  as  certain  as  certainty,  that  S2)rink- 
ling  is  not  baptism?  If  sprinkling  is  not 
baptism,  then,  beyond  all  dispute,  sprink- 
ling water  upon  a  person  is  not  baptizing  a 
person.  Sprinkling  water  upon  a  person, 
can  not  be  baptizing  a  person,  nor  a  mode 
of  baptizing  a  person,  unless  sprinkling  is 
baptizing,  and  this  can  not  be  unless  bap- 
tizing is  sprinkling.  This  is  as  evident  as 
that  two  and  two  make  four.  If  the  initi- 
atory ordinance  is  baptism,  and  it  (bap- 
tism) is  not  sprinkling,  then  sprinkling  is 
not  baptism.  There  is  no  misrepresenta- 
tion about  this  ;  it  is  as  clear  as  sunbeams. 
Mr.  ]\I.  thinks  I  did  not  meet  him  fairly 
on  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  I  did  not 
feel  that  I  was  treading uj^onanj^ dangerous 
ground  here.  Speaking  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,  he  says,  "  My  argument  was, 
that  the  same  specific  action  of  the  Spirit  is  in 
one  place  called  a  haptism,  and  in   another    a 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  419 

pouring  outy  This  I  deny.  Here  is  a  fViir 
issue.  I  fully  appreciate  the  gentleman's 
argument,  and  have  met  with  it  before  to- 
day. I  did  notice  this  argument,  and 
stranded  it  so  that  he  did  not  repair  it,  and 
never  will ;  but  I  did  not  show  the  fallacy 
of  it  off,  as  I  can  very  easily  do.  In  the 
first  place,  I  would  inquire,  if  the  specific 
action  is  pour^  can  it  be  sprinkle  or  immerse  f 
If  I  were  to  take  his  unsuj^ported  assertion, 
which  he  calls  an  "  argument,"  without 
any  discount,  what  does  it  amount  to  ?  It 
only  amounts  to  this:  that  one  specific  ac- 
tion is  expressed  by  two  different  words. 
If  this  is  true,  you  may  use  either  of  those 
words  to  express  this  specific  action.  I  hope 
we  shall  have  no  cringing  here,  but  that 
the  gentleman  will  face  the  responsibility. 
If  the  Lord  has  used  the  two  Greek  words, 
ehkeo  and  bajjtizo,  to  express  "  the  same 
specific  action,"  it  is  no  difference  which 
one  of  the  words  we  use  to  express  that 
specific  action.  If  pour  means  baptize,  hap- 
tize  means  po?<r,  and  if  that  is  not  the  case, 
then  his  assumption  is  a  fable,  and  no  argu- 
ment at  all.  Let  us  try  haptizo,  and  see 
how  it  will  express  the  sense  of  ekkeo. 
"  And  the  wine  haptizeth  (ekkco)  out;"  Matt, 
ix.  17.  "  The  wine  is  baptized  (ekkeo)  ;" 
Mark  ii.  22.  ^' Bapttized  {ekkeo)  out  of  the 
changers'  money;"  John  ii.  15.  "I  will 
baptize  (ekkeo)  out  of  my  Spirit;"  Acts  ii. 
17.  "  He  hath  baptized  forth  (ekkeo)  this 
which  you  now  see  and  hear ;"  Acts  ii.  33. 


420  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Does  it  express  the  "  same  specific  action  " 
that  it  does  with  the  word  })OHr,  or  ekl-eo,  to 
insert  baptize?  Every  man  here  sees  that 
it  does  not.  But  I  am  not  done  wath  the 
gentleman  yet.  If  the  two  words,  cklico 
and  haptizo,  express  the  same  specific  ac- 
tion, let  us  try  the  matter  the  other  way. 
Since  jjo?/r,  in  English,  or  el'keo,  in  Greek, 
exj^resses  the  same  specific  action,  as  bap- 
tize, let  us  try  the  Vford  pour,  and  Kce  if  it 
will  make  sense.  "I  indeed  po7/r  (baptize) 
you  with  water  ;"  Luke  iii.  10.  "He  shall 
pour  (haptize)  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost;" 
Luke  iii.  16.  You  can  see  that  it  makes 
nonsense.  The  Lord  himself  says,  "  I  will 
pour  out  of  my  Spirit."  That  was  pouring 
out  the  Spirit,  but  not  baptizing  at  all.  He 
said  again,  '*•  You  shall  be  baptized  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  not  many  days  hence."  Here 
we  have  two  distinct  actions.  The  Spirit 
is  the  subject  of  one  action,  and  people  the 
subjects  of  the  other.  The  S2oirit  wdspoiir- 
ed  out  in  the  one  action,  and  the  peoj^le 
were  baptized  in  the  other  action.  The 
subjects  of  the  action  are  distinct,  the 
words  that  express  the  actions  are  distinct, 
and  the  actions  are  distinct.  One  action 
could  have  taken  place  if  there  had  been 
no  people  there ;  the  other  could  not.  The 
Spirit  could  have  been  poured  out,  if  there 
had  been  no  people  there,  but  they  could 
not  have  been  baj^tized,  if  they  had  not 
been  there.  The  gentleman  significantly 
said,  "  There  is  not  a  word  said  about  any 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  421 

baptism  after  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit," 
and  he  might  have  added,  with  equally  as 
much  truth,  nor  a  word  about  baptizing 
hefore^  nor  when  the  Spirit  was  poured  out, 
much  less  that  th.Q  pouring  of  the  Spirit  was 
the  baptizing  of  the  people.  This  is  all  as- 
sumption. 

The  gentleman,  as  I  anticipated,  raised  a 
quibble  about  the  sound  filling  the  house. 
1  am  truly  sorry  to  have  to  ferrit  out  such 
little  plays  upon  words  as  this  ;  but  thj 
opponent  must  decide  for  himself  what 
kind  of  eriti-cism  he  will  endorse.  I  take 
it  that  the  Spirit  was  poured  out ;  that  the 
Spirit  came  in  the  sound  ;  that  the  Spirit 
eat  upon  each  of  them;  that  it  was  the 
Spirit  they  saw  and  the  Spirit  they  heard. 
The  expression,  "  it  sat  upon  each  of  them," 
does  not  mean  that  "  it,"  thQ sound.,  or  "it," 
the  tongues,  "  sat  upon  each  of  them,"  but, 
"it,"  the  Spirit.  When  they  heard  the 
•sound,  they  heard  him  who  made  the 
sound,  and  when  they  saw  his  emblem  sit- 
ting upon  them,  they  saw  him.  It  was  the 
Spirit  that  was  shed  forth,  wdiicli  they  saw 
iind  heard,  and  in  which  they  wea^e  bap- 
tized, and  no  sound. 

There  is  not  one  word  about  any  baptism 
of  fire  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  the 
referen<5e  to  the  baptism  of  fire,  Matt,  iii., 
we  find  "  fire  "  mentioned  three  times  in 
succession.  The  fire  that  shall  burn  the 
trees  that  bring  not  good  fruit,  the  baptism 
of  fire  and  the  fire  thiit  shall  burn  the  chaff. 


422  DEBATE    ON    THE 

The  fire  mentioned  in  the  former  and  lat- 
ter instances,  is  no  blessing,  but  the  emblem 
of  the  punishment  of  wicked  men,  Not 
only  so,  but  he  finds  before  him  a  genera- 
tion of  vipers  and  good  people,  or  good 
trees  and  bad  ones,  chafi"  and  wheat ;  the 
wheat  to  be  garnered  and  the  chaif  burned  ; 
or  the  good  baptized  with  Spirit  and  the 
bad  baptized  in  fire.  They  will  be  over- 
whelmed in  it.  But  if  the  gentleman  will 
have  it,  that  it  consisted  of  the  tongues 
like  as  of  fire,  it  was  certainly  not  pouring 
nor  sprinkling,  nor  do  I  know  where  he 
learned  that  the  tongues  were  upon  the 
head. 

The  worthy  gentleman  tries  to  excuse 
himself  in  asserting,  as  if  he  had  infallible 
testimony,  that  Paul  and  Cornelius  were 
both  baptized  in  the  house.  Finding  not 
one  word  on  the  subject,  he  now  falls  back, 
modestly,  and  thinks  I  draw  upon  my  im- 
agination, in  thinking  they  were  brought 
out  of  the  house.  But  this  is  simply  a 
shirking.  I  have  built  no  argument  upon 
their  being  hroiiglit  out.  I  do  not  build  ar- 
gument upon  assumption.  He  undertook 
to  build  an  argument  in  favor  of  their  be- 
ing sprinkled,  and  founded  it  upon  their 
being  baptized  m  ^/ie  home;  but  when  we 
call  on  him  for  the  proof  that  they  were 
baptized  in  the  house,  he  has  not  one  word. 
Failing  here,  he  determines  that  he  will 
make  something  of  the  case  of  the  Philij)ian 
Jailor.     He  states  his    points   in   his  case 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  423 

numerically,  but  he  is  careful  to  omit  some 
of  the  clearest  matters  in  the  narrative. 
Let  us  look  at  the  case.  "  He  called  for  a 
light  and  sprang  in."  What  follows  ? 
"  And  hroiight  them  out.''  They  are  now 
out  of  the  prison.  The  history  proceeds, 
"  And  they  spoke  unto  him  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  Ms  JwKseJ' 
They  are  now  in  the  Jailor's  house.  "  And 
he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night, 
and  washed  their  stripes  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his  straightway."  Where  did 
he  take  them  to?  Took  them  out  of  his 
house,  where  they  had  spoken  to  him  the 
word  of  the  Lord.  Hence,  the  very  next 
sentence  commences,  "  And  when  he  had 
brought  them  into  Ms  house,  he  set  meat 
before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God 
with  all  his  house."  They  were  in  his 
house  when  they  spoke  to  him  the  word, 
and  "he  took  them  "  out  of  his  house,  or 
he  could  not  have  "  brought  them  into  Ms 
honse."  There  is  no  countenance  for  sprink- 
ling here  ;  but  the  fact  clearly  deducible 
from  the  history,  that  they  were  out  of  the 
house  when  the  baj^tizing  w^as  done,  is 
favorable  to  immersion  ;  for  they  would 
not  have  gone  out  to  sprinkle. 

The  worthy  gentleman  is  astonished  at 
my  ignorance  of  physical  geograi)hy,  and 
informs  you  that  the  "  certain  water," 
found  upon  my  atlas,  is  but  an  insignificant 
stream  that  goes  dry  in  dry  weather! 
Where  does  he  get  all  his  infallible  inform- 


424  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ation  ?  Colton's  Atlas  is  as  good  as  there 
is  in  the  world,  and  it  represents  streams 
rising  a  few  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  and 
running  into  the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  one  I 
speak  of  making  its  course  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea.  I  am  perfectly  posted  about 
the  mountains,  and  that  this  stream  rises 
in  the  mountains,  winding  through  them 
till  within  a  few  miles  of  Gaza,  and  then 
northwest  to  the  sea.  To  speak  of  a  stream 
winding  more  than  one  hundred  miles 
through  the  mountains  without  water  to 
immerse,  is  simply  ridiculous. 

Mr.  M.  has  not  yet  had  the  nerve  to 
come  up  and  deny  that  eis  is  correctly 
translated,  in  the  words  "  went  doic7i  both 
into  the  ivater,''  nor  that  ek  is  correctly 
translated  in  the  phrase,  "  they  came  up  out 
of  the  water.''  But  he  inquires,  "  Does  that 
prove  that  one  or  the  other  was  li/in^  dozen 
in  the  water?"  It  is  true,  this  is  little, 
but  it  receives  importance  from  the  stand- 
ing and  learning  of  the  worthy  gentleman. 
I  stated  to  him  once  precisely  wliat  it 
proves,  and  that  can  not  be  expressed  in 
any  clearer  terms  than  those  employed. 
"  They  went  down  into  the  water."  He 
suggests,  that  the  meaning  of  that  is, 
"  they  went  down  from  the  chariot,"  and 
that  '•'  went  up  oat  of  the  water,"  means 
"  they  went  up  to  the  chariot."  This  has 
no  authority  save  that  of  the  worthy  gen- 
tleman, and  it  is  contradicted  by  matter  of 
fact,  for  Philij)  did  not  return  to  the  chariot. 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  425 

But  there  is  nothiDg  about  going  down 
from  the  chariot  or  up  to  the  chariot-  except 
in  the  minds  of  men  twisted  out  of  shape 
by  trying  to  support  that  which  has  not  a 
particle  of  foundation.  It  is  simply  a  plain 
history  of  a  case  of  immersion  and  nothing 
else.  "  They  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he 
immersed  him  and  they  came  up  out  of  the 
water."  This  passage  is  an  end  to  all  con- 
tradiction. 

The  WH^rthy  gentleman  thinks  there  is 
nothing  paradoxical  in  his  admitting  that 
the  mode  is  not  revealed,  that  the  ordinance 
is  not  sprinkling,  and,  of  course,  that 
sprinkling  is  not  the  ordinance  ;  that  im- 
mersion is  valid  baptism  ;  then  trying  to 
prove  sprinkling  ;  then  pouring  ;  and  then 
soothing  his  conscience  by  a  shamefully 
perverted  application  of  the  words,  "  Let 
every  man  be  fully  pursuaded  in  his  own 
mind."  If  he  has  one  clear  ray  of  light  on 
the  whole  subject,  I  should  like  to  see  it. 
He  has  been  at  almost  every  point  of  the 
compass,  and  has  no  system,  only  to  let 
every  one  do  as  seems  good  in  his  own 
eyes.  Being  put  out  with  his  self-contra- 
dictions, he  descends  to  the  private  remarks 
he  says  he  has  heard,  but  as  a  matter  of 
course  he  could  not  tell  who  he  heard  say 
all  these  things,  and  tries  to  manufacture  a 
little  sympathy.  ]^o  man  here  thinks  I 
am  under  any  obligation  to  follow^  him  and 
look  after  all  these  little  personal  matters 


426  DEBATE    ON    THE 

he  claims  to  have  heard.  These  are  mat- 
ters that  I  have  nothing  to  do  with,  and 
matters  that  I  have  no  concern  about.  I 
will  risk  these  brethren  sitting  around  me 
saying  any  thing  disparaging.  They  un- 
derstand the  gentleman ! 


MR.  MERRILL'S  SEVENTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

We  are  making  a  little  progress  in  the 
argument.  My  opponent  now  distinctly 
asserts,  that  in  the  conversation  of  our 
Lord  with  Nicodemus,  there  was  but  one 
new  birth  mentioned.  I  have  succeeded 
in  getting  from  him  an  expression  on  this 
point  that  can  not  be  misunderstood.  Now 
we  agree  thus  far — that  the  expression 
"  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  does  not 
contemplate  more  than  one  new  birth. 
Then  the  expression  "born  of  water,"  does 
not,  in  itself,  convey  the  idea  of  the  new 
birth  contemplated.  In  other  words, 
"  born  of  water,"  which  he  admits  has  ref- 
erence to  baptism,  does  not  express  the  full 
idea  of  what  the  Scriptures  call  being 
"born  again."  He  has  further  admitted 
that  the  language  is  figurative.  Hence, 
the  birth  is  not  literal  or  j)hysical.  He  has 
also  admitted  that  a  figure  often  resembles 
the  thing  represented  only  in  one  single 
feature.  Then  the  question  is — What  is 
the  new  birth?     The  answer  must  be  that 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  427 

it  is  a  moral  effect  of  the  active  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  changes  the  heart 
of  the  sinner  ;  it  is  a  moral  change,  inward 
and  spiritual,  by  which  the  sinner  passes 
from  death  unto  life.  Then  what  relation 
does  baptism  sustain  to  this  new  birth, 
which  is  inward  and  spiritual?  I  have  be- 
fore shown  that  baptism  is  the  standing 
emblem  of  the  office  and  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  but  I  now  remark  that  it  "is  62/7; 
the  symbol  of  the  transition,  inward  and 
spiritual,  by  which  our  souls  are  bathed  in 
that  ocean  of  love,  which  purifies  our  per- 
sons, and  makes  them  one  with  the  Lord." 
Then  what  is  the  point  of  resemblance  be- 
tween a  literal  birth  and  this  moral  effect, 
which  is  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
symbolized  by  baptism  ?  Is  the  resem- 
blance between  the  manner  of  a  birth  and 
the  manner  of  the  Spirit's  influence?  If  so, 
my  friend  may  be  right  in  making  the  meta- 
phor of  the  birth  denote  the  manner  of  bap- 
tism. But  what  does  he  or  any  one  else 
know  about  the  manner  of  the  Spirit's  ope- 
rations? Just  nothing  at  all!  And  that 
is  just  what  his  argument  amounts  to.  But 
where  is  the  foundation  of  the  metaphor? 
AYhere  is  the  point  of  resemblance?  1 
answer,  that  in  the  litei:al  birth,  there  is 
the  beginning  of  a  new  life;  and  we  all 
know  that  in  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
G-host,  there  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  life; 
so  that  the  idea  of  the  manner  of  baptism, 
is  not  necessary  to  a  correct  and  full  under- 


428  DEBATE   ON   THE 

standing  of  this  figurative  expression,  is 
foreign  to  the  subject,  and  can  not  be  de- 
duced from  the  passage  without  a  gross 
perversion. 

It  is  very  true  that  "born  of  water  "  is 
baptism  ;  and  that  "  born  of  the  Spirit "  is 
the  thing  represented  by  bajDtism,  is  just  as 
certainly  true  as  that  there  is  any  meaning 
in  hxnguage.  My  friend  calls  tliis  "  mist 
and  sophistry,"  but  he  can  not  dispute  it, 
and  present  a  good  reason  for  his  position, 
any  more  than  he  can  make  a  world  !  He 
might  as  well  just  confess  that  he  has  mis- 
taken the  meaning  of  this  whole  passage. 
Until  he  finds  a  resemblance  between  the 
manner  of  a  literal  birth,  and  the  manner 
of  the  Spirit's  influence  in  regenerating  the 
soul,  he  can  find  no  allusion  to  the  man- 
ner of  baptism,  in  the  phrase  "  born  of 
water." 

I  am  sorry  my  friend  was  so  dull  of  ap- 
prehension as  to  miss  my  meaning  in  re- 
gard to  the  "  burial."  I  never  said  bap- 
tism was  a  metaphor.  I  can  not  conceive 
how  Mr.  F.  could  imagine  such  a  thing. 
But  I  did  say  that  the  words  "buried," 
"planted,"  and  crucified,"  were  metaphori- 
cal. Has  the  gentleman  denied  it?  Can 
he — -dare  he  deny  it?  He  found  it  easier 
to  transfer  what  I  said  of  these  words,  to 
the  other  word,  ba2:)tism,  which  I  admitted 
was  literal.  But  what  are  we  to  think  of 
his  candor?  Were  it  not  for  his  confusion 
and    excitement,    what    could    we   think  ? 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  429 

Kow  he  says  the  burial  was  literal.  If  so, 
the  death  was  literal,  and  the  subject  of  the 
burial  was  drowned — ^killed  !  Did  I  say 
"bury"  represents  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit?  So  Mr.  F.  represents  me;  but  his 
o\\Hi  quotation  of  my  words,  shows  that  he 
misrepresents  me.  I  said  these  metaphors 
point  to  the  moral  effect  of  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ence. Is  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  the 
same  as  the  moral  effect  of  that  influence  ? 
Most  certainly  not !  In  this  great  transac- 
tion, the  agent  is  the  Holy  Spirit;  the 
symbol  is  baptism  ;  and  the  moral  effect^  is 
the  burial  into  the  death  of  Christ.  Bap- 
tism is  one  thing,  and  the  burial  is  another. 
Baptism  is  not  metaphorical,  but  the  burial 
is  metaphorical.  This  metaphor  does  not 
represent  the  influence  of  the  Spirit — bap- 
tism always  represents  that — but  it  does 
express  the  moral  effect  which  is  symbolized 
by  baptism,  and,  by  an  easy  figure,  attrib- 
uted to  baptism.  Can  the  gentleman  un- 
derstand me  now?  He  must  try  his  hand 
again,  and  for  his  own  credit,  it  is  impor- 
tant that  he  shall  not  again  misapprehend 
my  meaning.  And  he  thinks  my  reference 
to  the  "  tense  "  w\as  the  last  and  weakest  of 
all  criticism  !  Well,  perhaps  it  w^as  ;  but, 
if  so,  he  did  not  show  it  nor  expose  it.  I 
still  venture  the  assertion,  that,  "weak"  as 
it  is,  he  is  not  able  to  answer  it.  We  are 
huried  icith  Mm.  Is  it  not  so  ?  The  mo- 
ment we  cease  to  be  buried  with  Christ,  we 
cease  to  have  a  saving  interest  in  him.    We 


430  DEBATE    ON    THE 

do  not  cease  to  be  buried  with  him,  the 
moment  tl:»e  ceremony  of  baptism  is  over. 
This  would  be  the  case,  if  the  burial  were 
nothing  but  an  immersion  in  water;  but  he 
who  imagines  that  such  is  the  meaning  of 
the  passage,  is  very  much  mistaken,  ^^he 
"  burial  "  is  no  more  a  momentary  action 
than  is  the  "crucifixion"  of  the  "old  man," 
mentioned  in  the  connection ;  nor  is  one 
any  more  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism than  the  other.  'Nov  does  the  fact 
that  we  are  yet  buried,  prove  that  we  are 
yet  in  the  act  of  being  baptized,  as  Mr.  F. 
thinks ;  for  tlie  simple  reason  that  the 
burial  and  the  act  of  being  baptized  are 
different,  as  has  been  repeatedly  shown. 
The  gentleman's  attempt  to  save  the  argu- 
ment from  "burial"  and  "  planting,"  "  is 
absolutely  too  weak." 

The  gentleman  has  again  repeated  his 
assertions  about  the  locality  of  John's  bap- 
tism, and  declared  that  he  could  not  have 
sprinlded  the  peojyle  in  the  river.  This  is  one 
of  his  quibbles  to  which  1  have  paid  but 
little  attention  ;  but  since  he  seems  to  rely 
upon  it  with  some  considerable  confidence, 
I  will  try  to  treat  it  seriously.  He  does  a 
good  deal  in  the  way  of  playing  upon  the 
word  "  sprinkle,"  and  has  even  declared 
that  it  was  a  "  physical  impossibility  "  for 
John  to  sprinkle  men  in  the  river.  And 
he  laughed  contemptuously,  in  a  former 
speech,  at  the  idea  of  "  sprinkling  or  j^our-  . 
ing  a  lot  of  cups,  pots,  beds  and  hands !"    I 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  431 

feel  ashamed  to  notice  such  perfect  puerili- 
ty, but  must  not  let  any  thing  pass  that 
he  relies  upon.  In  all  this,  he  ignores  the 
rules  of  language  respecting  the  active  and 
passive  voices,  repudiates  rhetoric  and 
common  sense,  and  rushes  headlong  to  the 
conclusion  that  whatever  is  said  to  be 
*' sprinkled,"  is  necessarily  reduced  to  small 
bits,  and  distributed  like  scattered  drops 
of  water!  I  haver  heard  ignorant  cavillers 
trying  to  bolster  up  their  exclusive  notions 
by  resorting  to  this  childish  subterfuge — 
but  never  till  now  did  I  conceive  it  possi- 
ble for  a  man  of  learning  and  intelligence 
to  put  it  forth  in  the  form  of  sober  argu- 
ment. But  what  does  it  all  mean  ?  Was 
it  "physically  impossible"  that  John  should 
take  the  j)eoi3le  into  the  river,  and 
"  sprinkle  "  them  by  scores?  He  will  not 
say  that  it  was  !  St.  Paul  says  that  Moses 
"  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  peo- 
ple." Did  he  chop  the  book  and  all  the 
people  to  pieces,  and  sprinkle  them  by  scat- 
tering the  particles  hither  and  thither? 
Such  would  seem  to  be  the  case,  according 
to  the  brilliant  ideas  of  my  astute  friend  ! 
And  in  the  same  chapter  (Heb.  ix.)  we 
learn  that  "the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats, 
and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the 
unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh;"  but  Mr.  F.  sneers  at  the  idea  of 
"  sprinkling  "  a  thing  when  the  object  is  to 
wash  or  cleanse  it !  Grod  said,  by  the 
mouth    of    the   prophet,  "  I   will   sprinkle 

29 


432  DEBATE    ON    THE 

clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean  ;"  but  Mr.  F.  hoots  at  it,  and  cries 
"  preposterous  !'^  But,  notwithstanding  his 
intense  hatred  to  "  sprinkling,"  he  must 
know  that  when  God  selected  a  word  to  in- 
dicate the  manner  of  using  water  or  blood, 
in  a  religious  cleansing,  by  which  the  wash- 
ing away  of  human  guilt  was  denoted,  he 
selected  "sprinkle."  This  the  gentleman 
knows  and  can  not  dispute ;  and  yet  he 
ridicules  the  idea  of  "  sprinkling "  any 
thing  when  the  object  is  to  denote  a  moral 
cleansing !  The  gentleman  certainly  for- 
gets the  bearing  of  his  remarks.  I  doubt 
not  that  John  used  the  water,  in  adminis- 
tering baptism,  just  as  the  Jews  used  it  in 
their  ceremonial  purij&cations.'  That  was 
by  dipping  the  hyssop  in  the  water  and 
sprinkling  it  upon  the  people.  Thus  Mo- 
ses "  sprinkled  the  book  and  all  the  peo- 
ple." These  sprinklings  or  purifications 
are  called  baptisms,  and  there  is  not  the 
least  particle  of  evidence  that  John  ever 
changed  the  method  of  using  the  water. 
We  have  i^ositive  evidence  that  the  Jews 
baptized  by  sprinkling,  and  no  evidence 
that  John  changed  the  mode.  The  evi- 
dence that  the  Jews  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling is  found  in  the  fact  that  they  sprinkled 
water  in  some  of  their  purifications,  and 
all  their  purifications  together  are  called 
"  divers  baptisms."  Other  reasons  have 
been  given  why  John  repaired  to  places 
where  water  was  abundant,  aside  from  the 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  433 

mere  question  of  mode,     JSTor  has  he  made 
any  thing  out  of  the  baptism  of  sufferings. 
He  admits  that  the  Tvord  is  used  metajoh'ori- 
cally — that   the   allusion   was   not   to   the 
mode  of  sufferings — that  there  was,  in  fact, 
no  literal    immersion — then  I  ask,   again, 
AVhat  does  he  expect  to  prove  by  the  meta- 
phorical use  of  the  word?     If  the  word,  as 
used  with  reference  to  our  Savior's  suffer- 
ings, proves   any   thing  on  the   subject  of 
mode,  it  is  just  what  I  contend  for — that  it 
is  generic^  and  does  not  express  mode  at  all. 
If  I  were  contending  that  the  word  always 
has  the  specific  sense  of  sjDrinkle,  he  might 
then    appeal   to    this    examj)le    for   proof 
against  me — but  such  is  not  the  case,  and 
his    appeal    is    altogether   vain.      I   need 
scarcely  repeat  that  I  never  pretended  that 
haptismos   means    ordinance ;    this   you    all 
know  :  but  the  gentleman   dodges  the  issue 
again  in  regard  to  the  name  of  an   ordi- 
nance.    I   know    the    word    often    occurs 
where   there  is  no  ordinance — where  there 
is   no  water — no  wetting  ;  but  that  is  not 
the  question,  and  has  no  connection  with  it. 
The  question  is  one  of  fact:  Is  haptismos^  as 
a  matter  of   fact,  the    name    of  the  ordi- 
nance ? 

He  spent  some  time  again  in  trying  to 
make  something  out  of  the  "correspond- 
ence," but  failed  as  usual.  I  once  said  that 
baptism  is  not  sprinkling,  as  such.  If  it 
were,  then  wherever  a  "  sprinkling  "  oc- 
curred there  would  be  a  baptism  ;  but  I  be- 


434  DEBATE   ON  THE 

lieve  sprinklings  occur  very  often  where 
there  is  no  baptism.  I  believe  also  that 
immersions  often  occur  where  there  is  no 
baptism.  On  the  other  hand,  there  may 
be  a  baptism  where  there  is  no  immersion 
nor  sprinkling.  Does  Mr.  F.  believe  there 
can  be  no  immersion  without  a  baptism  ? 
I  put  this  question  to  him  fairly  and  square- 
ly, and  hope  he  will  answer  it- — if  he  can 
safely. 

His  effort  to  escape  the  argument  from 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  most 
remarkable.  His  remarks  prove,  what  I 
before  said,  that  he  does  not  appreciate 
the  argument.  I  said  plainly  that  the  word 
pour^  when  applied  to  the  Spirit,  does  not 
mean  the  same  precisely  as  haptizo — that  is 
not  the  point;  but  I  presented  a  plain /ac^, 
w^iich  contained  the  argument,  and  now 
the  gentleman  denies  the  fact.  But,  after 
denying  the /ac^,  and  showing  that  he  did 
see  where  the  issue  was,  he  proceeded  to 
argue  upon  a  very  different  issue — one  in- 
deed that  is  not  an  issue  at  all,  and  which 
can  have  no  possible  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion before  us  !  His  whole  argument,  in- 
cluding his  list  of  examples,  is  designed  to 
show  that  pour  and  baptize,  are  not  synony- 
mous, and  can  not  be  used  interchangeably. 
All  this  I  most  cheerfully  admit.  In  fact, 
I  asserted  it  when  I  first  presented  the  ar- 
gument. The  reason  is,  pour  is  specific, 
and  expresses  mode,  and  baptize  is  generic, 
and  does  not  express  mode.     But  then  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  435 

generic  includes  the  sped  fie.  This  has 
already  been  shown.  Accordingly,  bajytize 
is  in  the  promise,  hut  pour  is  in  the  account 
of  the  fulfillment.  The  promise  was,  Ye 
shall  be  baptized  tvith  the  Holy  Ghost.  Now, 
when  was  that  promise  fulfilled  ?  "Was  it 
not  in  the  very  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
is  called  a  pouring  out  ?  If  so,  the  baptisrn 
was  \>j  pouring  out,  or  there  is  no  mean- 
ing in  language.  The  one  action  of  the 
Spirit  was  alluded  to  both  in  the  promise 
and  the  fulfillment.  The  gentleman's  talk 
about  the  "sound"  and  the  "wind" 
amounts  to  sound  and  wind,  and  nothing 
more.  The  inspired  writer  says  the  "  sound  " 
filled  the  house  ;  but  then  they  were  not 
baptized  in  "sound;"  yet  Mr.  F.  thinks  the 
"  sound  "  and  "  wind  "  and  "  Spirit,"  were 
all  one.  If  this  is  not  his  position,  I  do  not 
understand  him.  He  says  the  Spirit  came 
in  the  sound ;  the  Spirit  sat  upon  them, 
etc.;  but,  unfortunately  for  him,  he  finds 
nothing  of  the  kind  in  the  account.  The 
sound  filled  the  house — but  the  Holy  Ghost 
filled  the  disciples,  while  the  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire  sat  upon  their  heads. 
Thus  you  observe  that  I  adhere  to  the  plain 
statements  found  in  the  Book,  while  the 
"quibbling"  and  the  "little plays  upon  the 
word,"  are  all  done  by  the  gentleman  on 
the  afiirmative. 

But  he  saj^s  there  were  two  distinct  ac- 
tions;  that  the  people  were  subjects  of  one 
action,  and  that  the  Spirit  was  the  subject 


436  DEBATE    ON   THE 

of  the  other  action,  etc. ;  but  did  he  prove 
this  ?  He  did  not,  and  he  can  not !  It  is 
nothing  but  bare  assumption.  He  feels  the 
force  of  the  fact  that  the  same  specific 
action  of  the  Spirit,  is  called  a  haptism  and 
Si.  pouring  out,  and  some  show  of  reply  must 
be  made  ;  but  the  idea  of  getting  uj)  "two 
distinct  actions  " — one  to  answer  to  the 
pouring^  and  the  other  to  the  baptizing^  will 
not  do.  This  is  too  glaring.  I  deny  it 
flatly,  and  demand  the  proof.  Let  the  gen- 
tleman show  us'the  two  distinct  actions  if 
he  can.  I  fear  not  successful  contradiction 
when  I  affirm  that  if  the  Apostles  were 
not  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  iclien  it 
was  poured  out  upon  them,  they  were 
never  baptized  with  it.  All  the  quibbling 
and  assumption  and  dodging  in  the  uni- 
verse, can  not  make  any  baptism  distinct 
from  the  pouring  out. 

But  the  gentleman  alluded  to  the  bap- 
tism of  fire,  and  fulfilled  my  prediction  that 
he  would  make  it  the  fire  of  hell!  Can  he 
make  this  out?  AYould  it  ever  have  been 
thought  of,  but  for  the  benefit  of  a  j^erish- 
ing  dogma  ?  I  verily  believe  not.  The 
j)romise  is  made  to  the  same  p>ersons^  at  the 
same  time,  and  in  the  same  vei'se,  with  the 
promise  of  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  can  it  be,  that,  under  such  circum- 
ces,  the  word  fire  relates  to  hell-torments, 
while  the  Holy  Ghost  denotes  the  highest 
blessing?  What  if  there  were  two  char- 
acters before  him  ?     What  if  he  did  declare 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  437 

the  chaff  should  be  burned  with  unquench- 
able fire  ?  Does  that  prove  that  half  the 
promise  made  to  the  disciples  was  a  threat- 
ning  designed  for  the  wicked  ?  JSTever ! 
The  baptism  was  one — it  was  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  fire.  The  Sj^ii'it  was  invisible.  It 
filled  their  hearts.  But?-  the  emblem  was 
along  with  it.  The  fire  sat  upon  them.  They 
were  not  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  but  they 
were  filled  with  his  divine  presence  ;  nor 
were  they  immersed  in  the  fire,  but  it 
rested  upon  their  heads.  The  j)romise  was 
fulfilled  then  or  never.  They  were  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  G-host  and  fire,  or  the 
words  of  John,  and  Jesus,  and  Luke,  are 
all  to  be  set  aside  as  untrue  ! 

The  gentleman  is  evidently  alarmed  at 
the  "  plain  cases  of  the  ISTew  Testament," 
for  which  he  called  so  lustily.  I  still  assert 
as  confidently  as  ever  that  Saul  and  Cor- 
nelius were  baptized  in  the  house.  I  have 
the  "  infallible  testimony  "  that  they  were 
in  the  house  at  the  time  some  of  the  tran- 
sactions narrated  occurred,  and  there  is 
not  the  least  shadow  of  testimony  that 
they  left  the  house  before  they  were  bap- 
tized. Then  it  clearly  devolves  on  Mr. 
F.  to  show  that  they  did  leave  the  house  -, 
but  he  excuses  himself  from  the  attempt  by 
saj'ing  he  "  built  no  argument  upon  their 
being  brought  out."  I  know  he  built  no 
argument  on  these  examples  at  all — he  is 
the  last  man  to  do  that — but  then  I  urged 
them  against  his  position,  and  he   can  not 


438  DEBATE   ON  THE 

save  his  cause  without  getting  them  out  of 
the  house.  He  "  adroitly  "  calls  on  me  to 
prove  that  they  were  baptized  in  the 
house ;  but  /  have  them  in,  and  it  is  for  him 
to  get  them  out !  The  burden  of  proof  is 
upon  him. 

But  he  tries  to  get  the  Jailor  and  house- 
hold, with  Paul  and  Silas,  out  in  the  dark, 
with  the  prison  doors  all  open,  and  going 
oif,  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  land,  in 
search  of  water  to  immerse  in !  In  my 
statement  of  this  case,  I  omitted  no  mate- 
rial fact.  "  He  brought  them  out  " — out  of 
where?  Out  of  the  "inner  prison,"  of 
course  ;  but  does  this  prove  that  he  brought 
them,  out  of  the  prison  f  Not  at  all.  JSTor  is 
it  said  he  took  them  into  his  own  house, 
until  after  he  and  all  his  were  baptized. 
They  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  them 
all  together — out  of  his  house,  and  out  of 
the  "  inner  prison,"  but  not  out  of  the 
prison  building.  My  position  is  that  the 
only  hypothesis  that  will  account  for  all 
the  facts  brought  to  light  in  the  narrative, 
is,  that  the  Jailor  occupied  one  part  of  the 
prison  building  for  his  family  residence. 
We  have  clear  evidence  that  the  prison 
contained  more  than  one  apartment ;  and 
when  the  Jailor  brought  his  prisoners  out 
of  the  inner  prison,  they  were  still  in  the 
building.  Kor  is  it  likely  that  he  would 
risk  his  life  in  taking  them  out  of  the  prison 
building  before  he  heard  them  speak  the 
word  of  the  Lord.     They  were  honest  men, 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  439 

and  would  not  expose  their  keeper  to  any 
danger,  even  if  he  were  willing.  But  when 
he  brought  them  out  of  the  apartment  in 
which  they  had  been  confined,  the  excite- 
ment of  the  occasion  would  naturally 
attract  all  that  were  in  the  house  to  the 
spot ;  so  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  could 
be  spoken  to  them,  and  they  could  all,  then 
and  there,  receive  baptism  from  the  same 
vessel  from  which  the  prisoners'  stripes 
were  washed.  All  this  is  perfectly  natural 
and  consistent ;  but  there  is  no  countenance 
to  immersion  here.  Mr.  F.  must  try  yet 
again. 

The  gentleman  still  relies  on  Colton's 
Atlas  to  prove  that  there  was  water  in  the 
"desert"  to  answer  the  puri:)Ose  of  im- 
mersion ;  and  he  claims  to  be  "  perfectly 
posted  "  in  regard  to  the  matter  ;  but  did 
I  not  prod,uce  good  authority  for  pro- 
nouncing the  "  certain  water  "  nothing  but 
a  wet-weather  torrent  ?  Has  he  quoted  a 
single  man  who  ever  saw  the  river  that 
winds  through  the  mountains  for  nearly  a 
hundred  miles  ?  No,  sir ;  nor  he  can  not. 
The  idea  is  preposterous.  There  is  no  such 
river  there!  He  has  seen  nothing  but  a 
mark  on  the  map,  and  the  whole  list  of 
travelers  have  failed  to  find  his  river. 
"What,  then,  does  he  rely  upon?  In  regard 
to  the  prepositions  eis  and  ek^  the  gentle- 
man occupies  a  strange  position.  He  re- 
fuses to  advocate  his  own  cause,  unless  I 
will  assail  the   translation  I     Have  I    not 


440  DEBATE    ON    THE 

shown,  as  clearly  as  language  can  show 
any  thing,  that  eis  does  not  necessarily  ex- 
press an  entrance,  and  that  ek  does  not  ne- 
cessarily denote  a  going  out  ?  Then  why 
does  he  quibble  about  the  "translation?" 
Can  he  deceive  any  one  into  the  idea  that  I 
am  under  the  necessity  of  making  war  on 
the  translation,  in  order  to  draw  him  out  ? 
If  eis  necessarily  denotes  an  entrance,  let 
him  say  so.  Let  him  nerve  himself  up  to 
the  task,  and  assert  that  the  preposition, 
without  the  prefix  to  tlie  verb,  expresses 
an  entrance,  and  I  will  further  demonstrate 
the  falsity  of  his  position.  I  can  wait  with 
patience. 

If  ray  position  were  as  confused  as  the 
gentleman's  ideas  respecting  it,  there 
would  be  no  difficulty  in  finding  some- 
thing paradoxical  in  it.  Eut  the  misfor- 
tune with  him  is,  the  people  can  discrimi- 
nate between  his  perversions  and  my  posi- 
tions. I  stand  out  boldly  upon  the  broad 
ground,  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  de- 
finitely prescribed — and  yet  that  we  are 
not  altogetlier  in  the  dark  respecting  it.  I 
have  "descended  "  to  no  personalities,  nor 
have  I  empkjyed  epithets  instead  of  argu- 
ments ;  but  the  gentleman  talks  fluently 
about  me  "  soothing  "  my  "conscience  by 
shameful  perversions "  of  the  Apostle's 
words  !  He  is,  in  all  this,  very  courteous  ; 
but  when  I  press  the  cold  facts  upon  him, 
which  he  can  not  meet,  he  charges  me  with 
improprieties  !     Bat  he  is  well  understood. 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  441 

Wo  are  both  scrutinized  by  intelligent 
hearers.  I  could,  were  it  proper,  name 
the  author  of  the  only  ''private  remark" 
alluded  to  by  me.  The  gentleman  is  pres- 
ent, and  knows  well  to  what  I  alluded. 
But  I  made  the  allusion  in  reply  to  the 
gentleman  on  the  affirmative.  Let  him 
proceed  with  his  arguments,  and  not  spend 
so  much  time  in  complaining  of  his  posi- 
tion, and  he  will  find  less  to  complain 
about. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  EIGHTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

My  opponent  has  given  his  reason  for 
saying  that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism.  If 
he  should  affirm  that  sprinkling  is  bap- 
tism, he  would  have  to  maintain  that 
wherever  there  is  sprinkling  there  is  bap- 
tism, and  wherever  there  is  baptism  there 
is  sprinkling.  That  is  all  so,  without  doubt. 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  take  all  the  con- 
sequences and  say  all  that  of  immersion. 
Immersion  is  baptism,  and  baptism  is  im- 
mersion. Wherever  there  is  an  immersion 
there  is  a  baptism;  and  wherever  there  is 
a  baptism  there  is  an  immersion.  But 
there  can  be  an  immersion,  or  a  baptism, 
and  no  ordinance  or  religious  rite.  A  man 
might  be  immersed,  or  be  sprinkled  or  pour- 
ed upon,  and  there  be  no  ordinance.  Hence 
we  find   each  of  the  Avords   signifying  the 


442  DEBATE   ON   THE 

three  actions,  sprinkle,  pour  and  immerse, 
in  both  Greek  and  English,  where  there  is 
no  ordinance,  or  religious  rite  of  any  sort. 
This  shows  how  preposterous  it  is  to  speak 
of  baptism  being  the  proper  name  of  the 
ordinance.  The  word  is  never  used  in  any- 
such  sense  in  the  l^ew  Testament.  The 
word  expresses  an  action,  one  action,  and 
nothing  else,  no  matter  what  the  subject  of 
that  action  is — whether  cups,  pots,  beds, 
hands,  or  people ;  and  no  matter  what  that 
action  is  in — whether  suiferings,  fire,  spirit 
or  water.  That  one  action  is  never  sprinkle 
or  pour,  but  always  immerse.  Hence  the 
distinguished  and  learned  Dr.  Lillie,  a  Pres- 
byterian, employed  as  a  translator,  or  re- 
visor,  by  the  American  Bible  Union,  in  the 
great  and  good  work  of  revising  the  Eng- 
lish Scriptures,  in  translating  Eph.  iv.  5, 
"One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,"  gives  us, 
"One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  immersion.''  For 
"doctrine  of  baptisms"  (Heb.  vi.  2),  he  gives 
us  "  doctrine  of  immersions.'^  He  fears  not 
to  translate  the  word,  and  does  it  without 
any  "circumlocution,"  at  that!  Is  Mr.  M. 
a  better  scholar  than  Dr.  Lillie? — or  has  he 
more  at  stake?  He  finds  no  difiiculty,  so 
far  as  I  have  seen,  in  translating  baptizoy 
wherever  found,  and  all  without  any  "  cir- 
cumlocution ;"  but  Mr.  M.  can  not  translate 
it  at  all — it  is  such  a  wonderful  word  !  I 
have  tried  over  and  over  again  to  induce 
him  to  translate  the  word  in  some  way,  but 
he  will  not  do  it.     He  admits  that  baptize 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  443 

is  a  Greek  word,  but  to  get  it  into  English 
is  the  trouble  !  He  has  not  attempted  to 
translate  it  into  English  ;  and  he  will  not; 
lie  knows  that  no  translation  made,  or  that 
can  be  made,  will  suit  him.  It  is  mere  talk 
to  say  that  the  word  can  not  be  translated  j 
that  no  English  word  will  exhaust  its  mean- 
ing, etc.  If  one  word  will  not  exhaust  its 
meaning,  give  us  several  words.  If  it  means 
sprinkle,  pour  and  immerse,  translate  into 
all  of  these  words.  But  the  truth  is,  that 
the  word  means  immerse,  and  it  will  make 
sense  to  translate  it  immerse  in  every  place 
in  the  New  Testament  where  it  is  found. 

The  worthy  gentleman  has  been  saying, 
I  know  not  how  often,  that  when  the  use 
of  water  is  described,  as  a  religious  ceremo- 
ny, it  is  sprinkling,  and  he  has  actually  re- 
ferred us  to  a  place  where  the  word  sprinlle 
is  found.  But  what  is  his  object  in  that? 
Does  he  think  that  has  any  reference  to  the 
subject  in  debate?  I  knew  long  ago  that 
the  word  sprinkle  was  in  the  Bible  in  a  few 
places,  and  even  in  the  New  Testament 
some  seven  times ;  but  the  trouble  is,  that 
it  has  no  reference  to  the  ordinance.  It  is 
never  used  in  reference  to  the  rite  in  any 
place  in  the  Bible.  What  light  does  it,  then, 
throw  upon  the  subject  for  him  to  quote  a 
passage  from  the  Old  Testament,  that  has 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  the  ordinance, 
containing  the  word  sprinkle !  Does  he  wish 
you  to  "  take  the  sound  for  the  meaning  f — 
or  what  can  he  have  in  view  ?    He  can  not 


444  DEBATE   ON   THE 

jDossibly  think  he  is  showing  how  the  Apos- 
tles baptized,  or  that  he  is  showing  what 
haptizo  means ;  for  there  is  nothing  about 
either.  The  only  purpose  it  can  serve,  to 
go  back  among  the  Jewish  ceremonies,  is, 
to  escape  from  the  clear  light  of  the  IsTew 
Testament  and  get  back  among  the  types 
and  shadows — among  the  mists  and  fogs 
before  the  mystery  of  the  gospel  was  made 
known,  before  the  secret  was  revealed,  and 
before  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Jesus 
Christ  were  developed  to  mankind.  The 
types  and  shadows  were  the  best  lights 
l^ossessed  once;  but  the  antitype  is  clearer 
than  the  type  always.  The  reality  is  al- 
ways clearer  than  the  shadow.  The  type 
of  a  man,  or  the  picture,  will  give  some  idea 
of  his  appearance,  to  one  who  never  saw 
him  ;  but  if  you  have  the  man  himself  be- 
fore you,  it  is  easier  to  determine  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  man  by  looking  at  him, 
than  the  picture,  even  if  you  have  a  good 
picture.  But  if  some  man  would  cheat  you 
and  show  a  picture  of  something  else  in  the 
place  of  the  man  he  was  talking  about,  to 
give  you  an  idea  of  the  a2:)pearance  of  the 
man,  he  not  only  would  fail  to  enlighten 
you,  but  would  mislead  you.  What,  then, 
is  my  friend  in  search  of  among  the  types? 
Has  he  found  a  type  of  baptism?  ]^ot  at 
all.  He  makes  baj^tism  itself  a  type  of  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart,  and 
then  he  goes  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  to 
learn  what  bajitism  is.    With  him,  baptism 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  445 

represents  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  then 
the  work  of  tlie  Sj)irit  represents  baptism. 
With  him,  baptism  represents  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  and  then  he  goes  to  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  to  learn  what  baptism  is  !  Tlius 
he  runs  round  and  round  in  a  circle,  with- 
out proving  any  thing,  affording  any  light 
or  any  satisfaction  to  the  conscience  of  one 
soul  in  this  assembly. 

The  worthy  gentleman  desires  to  know 
if  eis  can  not  be  rendered  any  other  way 
than  as  found  in  the  expression,  "  went 
down  into  the  water."  It  can  not,  in  that 
passage,  Avithout  violating  one  of  the  first, 
plainest  and  most  important  of  all  rules  in 
translating,  viz.,  that  the  primary  meaning 
is  always  to  be  given,  unless  there  is  some- 
thing in  the  connection  forbidding  it.  In 
this  connection  there  is  nothing  forbidding 
the  first  meaning,  or  no  reason  why  the 
first  meaning  shall  not  be  adopted.  Mr.  M. 
has  given  no  reason,  and  he  can  give  no 
reason  why  the  first  meaning  should  not  be 
adopted.  The  translators  have  gone  ac- 
cording to  the  rule.  They  find  no  reason 
why  the  first  meaning  may  not  be  adopted  ; 
and  tbey  find  els  after  a  verb  of  motion,  in 
which  case  it  should  be  translated  into. 
They  have  honestly  translated  it  into.  Mr. 
M.  has  not,  and,  I  think,  his  honor  will  not 
j^ermit  him  to  deny  that  the  translation  is 
correct.  It  can  not  be  translated  any  other 
way,  in  the  passages  in  dispute,  without 
violating  the  simplest  rules  in  translating. 


446  DEBATE   ON   THE 

The  same  observations  are  true  of  eh.  Its 
literal  and  first  meaning  is  out  of,  and  the 
rule  requires  that  it  be  so  translated,  unless 
there  is  a  reason  in  the  context,  why  some 
other  meaning  should  be  adopted,  or  unless 
there  be  some  clear  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
giving  the  first  meaning.  It  can  not,  in 
the  passages  in  controversy,  be  translated 
any  way  but  out  of,  without  violating  the 
clear  and  well-established  rules  of  translat- 
ing. 

I  notice  that  Mr.  M.,  in  criticising  sprink- 
ling cups,  pots,  beds,  hands  and  people, 
only  attempted  to  meet  one  part  of  the  dif- 
ficulty, and  that  the  part  the  least  relied 
upon.  I  knew  that,  by  a  pretty  great 
stretch  of  the  figurative,  we  could  say, 
"  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  the  people," 
though  the  idea  is  simply  and  literally 
sprinkled  upon  the  book  and  the  jieople. 
He  knows,  too,  that  his  Discipline  bas  it 
^''sprinkle  or  pour  water  upon  them,"  and 
"  immerse  them  in  water T  This  is  literal. 
But  the  main  point,  if  you  noticed,  the  gen- 
tleman passed  in  profound  silence.  I  ad- 
mit the  possibility  of  using  the  expression, 
sprinkled  or  poured  the  people,  but  it  is  with 
the  understanding  that  the  elipsis  be  sup- 
plied, so  as  to  read,  "  sprinkled  or  poured 
upon  the  people."  This  no  man  who  does 
his  own  thinking  can  deny.  But  the  diffi- 
culty that  Mr.  M.  glided  over  silently  and 
that  he  must  face,  is  that  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring  people  in  a  river,  or  in  water.     This 


ACTION    OP    BAPTISM.  447 

ig  a  natural  and  a  physical  impo.^sibility. 
There  is  not  a  man  that  can  stretch  his 
imagination  to  believe,  that  our  Lord  was 
sprinhled  of  John  in  Jordan  and  that  he 
went  lip  straight  loay  out  of  the  tvater^,  or  that 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  "went  down  into  the 
water  and  that  he  sprinhled  him,  and  they 
came  up  out  of  the  water,  or  that  John  was 
sprinhling  in  Enon  near  Salim  because  there 
luas  much  loater  there.  All  that  is  necessary 
to  understand  all  this,  is  to  allow  reason  to 
have  her  proper  place,  and  let  a  sound 
mind  take  the  place  of  a  prejudiced  and  a 
perverted  understanding.  Let  the  gentle- 
man, then,  if  he  can,  meet  the  case  fairly 
and  squarely  and  show  how  people  could 
be  sprinkled  in  the  river  or  water.  I  can 
see  how  w^ater  could  be  sprinkled  v2:)on  the 
people,  but  I  can  not  see  how  th^  people 
could  be  sprinkled  in  the  river.  I  can  see 
how  they  could  be.  immersed  in  the  river. 

I  do  not  like  to  make  little  of  an  oppo- 
nent, or  to  accuse  him  of  trifling;  but 
when  I  look  at  the  solemn  passage,  Rom. 
vi.  1-G,  and  Col.  ii.  12-13,  it  requires  a  great 
stretch  of  charity,  to  call  it  by  a  milder 
name  than  trifling.  Especially  is  this  the 
case,  when  we  look  at  that  least  of  all 
plays  upon  verbiage — that  mere  trick  of 
trying  to  manuflxcture  something  from 
sound  and  not  from  meaning,  m  emphasizing 
tlie  words  ^' ice  arc  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism." We  continue  in  the  burial,  or 
remain    in    it.  he  allows  !     What   does   he 

30 


448  DEBATE   ON    THE 

think  to   prove  by  that?    Nothing  under 
the  shining  sun,  unless  it  be  that  what  the 
Apostle  says  is  not  true  ;  that  is,  that  we 
are  not  buried  with  him   in    baptism.     No 
cavil  can   escape   the  Apostle's  plain  lan- 
guage.    We  are  not  in  debate  about  when 
the  burial  took  place,  nor  how  long  it  con- 
tinues, but  the  simple  matter   w^ith  us,  is 
stated  in  the  most  unequivocal  words.     Is 
the  language  of  God  true,  that   they  were 
"  buried  with  him  in  baptism  V     Is  the  lan- 
guage true,  that  the  disciples  at  Eome  were 
'•'■  buried  with  him   by  baptism  V     I  care  not 
when  it  was  done,  nor  do   I   care   for  any 
little   cavils  about  how  long  it  continues. 
But  does  he  believe  the  language   of  God, 
that  states  that  they  were  "  buried  ivith  him 
by  baptism .?"     If  he   does,   that   matter   is 
settled.     He    knows    that    they  were   not 
buried  with  him  by  sprinkling,  that  such  a 
thing  could  not  be,  and  that  such  is  not  the 
meaning.     Has  Mr.    M.  risen,  young  as  he 
is,  to  such  distinction  that  he  can  set  aside 
the  venerable  Wesley?     Shall  he  set  aside 
by    a    single    assertion,    Dr.    A.    Clarke? 
These   great  men,   unhesitatingly   declare 
not  only  that  immersion  was  the  ancient 
practice,  but  that  the  expressions,  ''buried 
with  him  in  baptism,"  and  "buried  with 
him  by  baptism,"  evidently  allude  to   the 
ancient   manner   of  baptizing  by    immer- 
sion."    John  Calvin    declares   boldly  that 
the  ancient  manner  was  immersion.     But 
our   young    divines    have    found   out   that 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  419 

"Wesley,  Clarke  and  Calvin  were  mistaken, 
and  that  tliese  expressions  have  no  refer- 
ence to  the  manner  of  baptizing  ! 

I  think  the  gentleman  is  a  little  sick  of 
his  unsupported  and  nnsupportable  asser- 
tion, that  the  word  2^our,  in  the  words,  "  I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit,"  expresses  the  same 
specification,  as  the  word  haptize^  in  the 
promise,  "he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Spirit."  The  word  pour,  here,  does 
noL  mean  baptize,  and  the  word  baptize,  in 
the  promise,  does  not  mean  pour.  There 
were  two  things  done.  The  Spirit  was 
poured  out.  This  could  have  been  done  if 
there  had  been  no  people  there.  The  peo- 
ple were  baptized.  This  is  another  thing. 
The  Spirit  was  poured.  Does  pour  here 
mean  baptize?  Mr.  M.  says  it  does.  Then 
the  Spirit  was  baptized,  for  "  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out."  The  true  state  of  the 
case  is,  that  pour  does  not  mean  baptize  ; 
hence,  the  Spirit  was  poured,  but  not  bap- 
tized ;  and  baptize  does  not  mean  ^owr,  in 
the  promise,  for  the  people  were  baptized, 
but  not  poured.  J.^ pour  and  baptize  in  these 
two  passages,  express  the  same  thing,  or 
the  same  action,  then  nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  that  which  was  poured 
was  baptized.  The  one  action  is  the  same, 
the  one  thing  is  the  same,  or  that  which 
was  done  is  the  same,  no  matter  how  many 
terms  express  it.  If  that  which  was  done, 
is  clearly  expressed  by  the  words  "  pour 
out  my  Spirit,"  and  that  is  the  same  thing 


450  DEBATE   ON    THE 

meant  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  then 
the  Spirit  was  baptized,  for  it  was  poured 
out. 

The  Spirit  could  have  been  poured  out 
and  no  baptizing  done.  Baptizing  could 
have  been  done,  if  there  had  been  no  pour- 
ing out  of  the  Spirit.  The  promise,  "  I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit,"  does  not  mean, 
as  any  man  here  can  see,  "  I  will  baptize 
my  Spirit,"  but  I  will  send  forth  my  Spirit ; 
hence  the  Apostle  says,  "  He  hath  shed 
forth  this  which  you  now  see  and  hear." 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  was  poured  out, 
shed  forth,  or  sent  forth,  but  this  does  not 
express  what  he  did,  after  he  was  sent 
forth.  He  overwhelmed  the  Apostles  w^ith 
his  stupendous  and  miraculous  powers, 
after  he  was  sent  forth.  Sending  the 
Spirit  forth,  and  what  he  did  after  he  was 
sent  forth,  are  two  as  distinct  things  as 
sending  Jesus  and  what  Jesus  did  after  he 
was  sent.  The  basis  of  the  expression 
"baptism  of  the  Holy  vSpirit,"  is  not  2'^^^f^\ 
nor  sprinkle^  but  the  overwhelming  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  upon  the  Apostles. 
This  is  forcibly  and  clearly  expressed  in 
the  sentence,  "He  shall  immerse  you  in  the 
Holy  Spirit."  This  is  precisely  what  the 
passage  says,  when  w^e  have  it  in  English. 

My  worth}?-  friend  has  been  in  the  habit 
of  having  what  he  says  taken  for  granted, 
without  any  proof,  so  long,  that  he  sweeps 
aside  the  highest  and  best  authority  in  the 
world,  by  a  single  assertion.     He   sweeps 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  451 

aside  the  grand  Atlas  of  Colton — the  latest, 
the  fullest  and  most  perfect  in  the  world ; 
and  the  "  certain  water,"  mentioned  in  the 
word  of  God,  having  its  source  a  short  dis- 
tance south  of  Jerusalem,  and  winding 
through  the  hill  country,  till  near  Gaza, 
and  thence  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  call- 
ing it  "  a  mark  upon  the  atlas,"  where  there 
was  no  water,  exce^^t  in  "wet  weather!" 
He  then  criticises  upon  the  Greek  particle, 
ti^  translated  "certain,"  and  informs  us 
that  it  means  a  little  water  !  It  is  a  Avon- 
der  that  they  found  "  a  little  water,"  in 
this  desert,  where  there  was  no  water  ex- 
cept in  wet  weather !  As  a  matter  of 
course  it  was  a  dry  time  when  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  came  to  this  "  certain  water." 
Is  there  any  man  here  that  does  not  know 
that  the  expression,  "  they  came  unto  a 
certain  water,"  is  not  ap>plied  by  writers 
to  a  quart  or  a  pint,  or  any  insignificant 
amount  not  sufficient  to  immerse  a  man  ? 
Is  there  any  man  here  that  does  not  know 
that  water  in  abundance  for  immersing,  is 
found  in  creeks  within  five  miles  of  their 
source,  even  when  the  weather  is  so  dry 
that  there  has  been  no  Tunning  water  for 
weeks  ?  I  have  seen  and  immersed  in  as 
beautiful  and  clear  water  as  need  be  in 
creeks  of  this  description,  in  less  than  five 
miles  from  the  head  branch,  and  can  show 
Mr.  M.  any  number  of  such  places  in  our 
own  State.  Is  there  any  man  here  that 
does  not  know,  that  when  you   admit  the 


452  DEBATE    ON   THE 

truth  of  the  statement,  "  they  came  unto  a 
certain  water,"  that  it  is  just  as  likely  that 
they  came  unto  water  enough  for  immer- 
sion, as  that  they  came  unto  water  at  all? 
How  desperate,  then,  must  the  cause  of  the 
man  be,  who  has  to  try  to  make  you  be- 
lieve there  was  not  water  sufficient  for 
immersion,  to  create  doubts  in  your  mind 
about  immersion  !  There  is  no  need  of  all 
this  twisting.  If  a  man  desires  to  know 
that  he  is  right,  he  must  take  up  the  sacred 
narrative,  and  when  he  is  informed  that 
"  they  came  unto  a  certain  water,"  believe 
it  in  its  obvious  import ;  and  when  he  finds 
that  "  they  went  down  into  the  water,"  be- 
lieve it,  and  no  caviling  about  it.  When  he 
finds  that  "they  came  iip  out  of  the  water," 
believe  it,  and  regard  no  twisting  and 
evasion  of  these  plain  matters. 

But  I  am  not  done  with  the  worthy 
gentleman  !  He  talks  about  "  confusion." 
I  can  show  you  where  confusion  reigns. 
The  gentleman  has  no  position,  only  to  op- 
pose me.  He  holds  nothing,  maintains 
nothing  and  defends  nothing.  He  makes 
himself  responsible  for  nothing.  He  argues 
negatively.  He  paved  the  way  for  this  in 
the  correspondence,  which  he  has  such  an 
aversion  to  hearing.  His  positions,  when 
at  different  points  of  the  compass,  have 
been  as  follows  : 

1.  The  mode  is  not  definitely  revealed  in 
the  Bible. 

2.  Baptism  is  not  sprinkling,  pouring  nor 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  453 

immersion,  as  such,  but  baptism.  You 
must  not  puzzle  him  to  tell  how  he  knows 
this,  if  the  mode  is  not  revealed. 

3.  He  admits  that  immersion  is  baptism, 
administers  it  for  baptism  and  calls  it  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  I  know  not 
how  he  knows  this,  when  the  mode  is  not 
revealed. 

4.  He  throws  aside  all  his  learning  and 
knowledge,  and  inquires  of  the  candidate 
how  the  ordinance  sball  be  administered. 

5.  He  finds  a  passage  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, where  it  has  no  reference  to  the  ordi- 
nance, containing  the  word  sprinkle^  that 
clearly  reveals  the  mode,  and  shows  it  to 
be  sp7-{nhUng !  How  he  harmonizes  this 
with  his  other  position,  that  the  mode  is 
not  revealed,  is  a  matter  that  you  must  not 
inquire  into  !  He  has  a  way  of  satisfying 
himself,  though  he  may  not  be  able  to  satis- 
fy you. 

6.  He  finds  the  mode  next  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  words,  "  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit,"  and  he  thinks  it  is  |jowri?i^?  beyond 
dispute  !  This  too,  may  puzzle  you  to  har- 
monize with  his  other  position,  that  the 
mode  is  not  revealed;  his  other  one,  that 
immersion  is  baptism;  or  his  other  one, 
that  it  is  sprinkling;  or  his  other  one,  that 
baptism  is  not  sprinkling,  pouring,  nor  im- 
mersing, as  such  ! 

7.  His  seventh  position,  negatively,  as 
usual,  is  that  "buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism," and  "buried  with  him  by  baptism," 


454  IJEBATE    ON    THE 

which  Clarke  and  Wesley  say  "  evidently 
allude  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing 
by  immersion,"  has  no  allusion  to  the  man- 
ner of  baptizing  at  all ;  but  symbolizes  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  are  a  few 
of  the  illuminations  he  has  afforded  us  since 
we  have  entered  upon  this  proposition. 
Hence,  he  says,  "  Wc  are  making  a  little 
progress." 

But  he  is  now  before  you  as  a  preacher, 
and  he  must  come  up  and  face  the  expres- 
sions, "buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  and 
"  buried  with  him  by  baptism."  ISTow  he 
may  make  his  election  among  the  several 
kinds  of  baptism.  The  clear  and  unequivo- 
cal language  is  "  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism." What  kind  of  baptism  is  it  in 
which  they  arc  buried  with  him.  Does  it 
mean  the  baptism  of  sufferings  ?  It  does 
not,  for  all  the  disciples  were  not  baptized 
in  sufferings  ;  and  this  is  a  baptism  through 
which  all  the  disciples  at  Eome  and  Collos- 
se  had  gone.  Does  it  mean  the  baptism  of 
fire  !  He  will  not  say  that  it  does;  for  he 
thinks  that  sat  upon  them.  I  might  have 
made  "sat  upon  each  of  them,"  another  of 
his  modes,  and  even  located  it  upon  the 
head.  He  does  not  think  all  the  disciples 
at  Eome  and  Collosse  were  "  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism"  of  fire.  Was  it,  then, 
baptism  in  water  they  were  "buried  in?" 
He  contends  not,  for  this  would  amount 
to  immersion.  If  they  were  buried  with 
him  in  water  baj^tism  at  all,  it  was  buried 


ACTION    UF    BAPTISM.  455 

with  him  by  immersion.  To  avoid  this 
dilemma,  he  resorts  to  the  Spirit.  The 
burial  represents  the  work  of  the  Spirit ! 
That  is  not  Scripture.  It  is  naked  asser- 
tion. It  is  "  buried  in  baptism  "  of  some 
sort.  '  He  will  not  admit  that  it  is  in  water, 
fire  or  suiferings.  What,  then,  is  it?  There 
is  nothing  left  but  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 
There  is  no  other  baxDtism  mentioned.  He 
is  left,  then,  to  take  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit.  The  churches  at  Eome  and  Collos- 
se,  then,  according  to  this  doctrine,  were 
"  hurled  with  Christ  in  baptism"  of  the  Spir- 
it !  The  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  his  position 
makes  a  burial,  or  an  immersion  !  Yet  he 
tries  to  prove  that  it  was  pouring.  The 
pouring  out,  he  thinks  at  one  time  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  but  at  another  time  they 
were  buried  in  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  ! 
]S[o  wonder  nothing  upon  the  subject  is  es- 
tablished in  his  church.     It  is  not  strange 

O 

that  one  man  is  sprinkled  upon,  another 
poured  upon,  another  immersed,  another 
kneels  in  the  water,  and  has  it  poured  upon 
the  head,  and  another  has  not  attempted  to 
be  baptized  at  all.  N^o  wonder,  among  all 
this  vacillating,  equivocating  and  twisting, 
that  there  are  thousands  of  honest  souls,  in 
his  church,  in  doubt,  uncertainty  and  per- 
plexity on  the  whole  subject.  ISTo  wonder 
that  the  good  people,  the  true  lovers  of  Je- 
sus, in  the  Methodist  church,  who  are  hon- 
estly trying  to  serve  God,  are  wavering 
and  seeking  baptism  some  place  else.  There 


456  DEBATE    ON    THE 

is  but  one  safe  course  for  all  such,  and  that 
we  would  exhort  them  to  take,  if  these 
were  the  last  words  we  ever  expected  to 
utter  on  the  subject ;  and  that  is,  in  the 
fear  of  the  Lord,  be  honestly  and  solemnly 
immersed  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  your 
trouble  about  baptism  will  be  at  an  end. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  SIXTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

The  gentleman  says  he  is  willing  to  take 
all  the  consequences  of  saying  that 
wherever  there  is  an  immersion  there  is  a 
baptism  ;  but  he  saw  that  it  would  never 
do  to  leave  the  subject  there,  and  proceeded 
to  guard  it  by  saying  there  might  be  a 
baptism  where  there  is  no  ordinance!  Well, 
bis  disclaimer  may  help  him  a  little,  but  it 
will  not  save  him.  He  is  now  fully  com- 
mitted to  the  doctrine  that  baptism  consists 
of  the  abstract  action  of  entering  into  the 
water,  neither  more  nor  less.  Then,  what- 
ever the  ordinance  may  involve  or  imply, 
over  and  above  the  abstract  idea  of  enter- 
ing the  water,  is  no  part  of  baptism !  The 
ordinance  and  the  baptism  are  not  the 
same !  And  the  man  who  accidentally 
falls  into  the  river,  is  just  as  effectually 
baptized  as  though  he  were  dipped  by  an 
inspired  Apostle!  l!^othing  is  lacking  to 
complete     the    baptism,    although     every 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  457 

thing   may  be    lacking  to   complete    the 
ordinance ! 

It  seems  impossible  for  him  to  state  my 
positions  correctly.  There  must  be  some 
fate  controlling  his  intellect  that  he  can 
not  resist.  He  will,  in  spite  of  every  thing, 
carry  the  impression  that  I  have  admitted 
that  baptism  may  not  be  administered  by 
sprinkling,  simply  because  I  said  baptism 
is  not  sprinkling,  as  such  !  As  to  the  "  dis- 
tinguished and  learned  Dr.  Lillie,"  I  have 
only  toremark,  thatif  hehas  hired  himself  to 
the  so-called  Bible  Union,  to  translate  hap- 
tismos  immersion,  I  care  not  the  snap  of  my 
finger  for  his  learning.  It  will  not  have 
the  weight  of  a  feather  with  men  who  do 
their  own  thinking. 

The  gentleman  spent  some  more  of  his 
time  in  trying  to  throw  dust  over  my  ap- 
peal to  the  Bible  use  of  the  word.  I  go  to 
the  types  and  ceremonies  of  the  former 
dispensation,  as  he  knows  very  well,  only 
for  illustrations ;  and  if  he  did  not  feel  the 
force  of  my  appeal  to  Bible  use,  he  would 
not  make  such  an  effort  to  stir  up  preju- 
dice and  raise  fog.  That  Bible  use  is 
against  him,  I  have  shown  beyond  all  ques- 
tion. As  yet,  I  have  paid  but  little  atten- 
tion to  authorities  outside  of  Bible  use.  I 
will,  however,  call  the  gentleman's  atten- 
tion to  one  or  two  facts  bearing  on  the  sub- 
ject. You  all  remember  how  boldly  the 
affirmant  walked  out  upon  the  ground 
taken  by  Mr.  Carson,  and   then  how  sud- 


458  DEBATE    ON    THE 

denly  he  walked  back  again.  Mr.  Carson 
was  indeed  a  learned  man,  though  he  was 
a  strong  partisan,  a  rigid  immersionist, 
and  an  uncompromising  enemy  to  Pedo- 
baptist  theology.  But  with  all  his  learning 
and  prejudice  he  admits  that  hapto  signifies 
to  dye  by  sprinhling ;  and  that  this  is  not  a 
metaj)horical,  but  a  literal  meaning  of  the 
word.  By  way  of  vindication  of  this  ojDin- 
ion,  he  cites  examples  from  the  classics, 
proving  beyond  all  question,  that  hapto  ex- 
presses an  action  without  reference  to 
mode,  and  that  it  sometimes  occurs  where 
there  can  be  no  allusion  to  dipping,  but 
where  another  mode  is  exj)ressly  pointed 
out.  I  gave  some  of  the  examples  in  a 
former  speech,  but  now  call  them  up  again. 
The  first  was  from  Hippocrates.  He  used 
hapto  to  denote  the  action  of  dyeing  a  gar- 
ment by  dropping  the  coloring  Jliiid  upon  it. 
"  AVhen  it  drops  upon  the  garments  they 
are  dyed^  This,  Mr.  Carson  concedes,  was 
dyeing  without  any  reference  to  dipping. 
Was  Mr.  Carson  right  ?  If  so,  Mr.  Frank- 
lin is  wrong.  Did  Hippocrates  use  hapto 
correctly  ?  If  so,  Mr.  F.  must  for  ever  fail ! 
I  have  on  my  side  the  authority  of  Carson, 
and  what  is  of  vastly  more  importance,  the 
use  of  the  word  by  Hippocrates.  Another 
exam2:)le  adduced  by  Carson,  to  prove  that 
hapto  does  not  always  denote  dipping,  is 
the  following  :  "Magnes,  an  old  comic  poet 
of  Athens,  used  the  Lydian  music,  shaved 
his  face   and   smeared   it  over   with   tawny 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  459 

ashes."  In  commenting  nj^on  this  exam- 
ple, Mr.  Carson  says,  "  Now,  surely  hapto- 
menos  here  has  no  reference  to  its  primary 
meaning.  ISTor  is  it  used  figuratively.  The 
face  of  the  person  was  rubbed  with  the 
ashes.  By  any  thing  implied  or  referred 
to  in  this  example,  it  could  not  be  known 
that  hapto  ever  signifies  to  dip^  These  ex- 
amples prove  that  even  in  classic  as  well 
as  in  Bible  use,  hapto  is  used  without  any 
reference  to  dipping.  And  how  does  Mr. 
F.  expect  to  sustain  himself  in  his  position 
that  it  always  means  dip  or  immerse  and 
nothing  else  ?  It  is  unquestionable  that  so 
far  as  mode  is  concerned,  hapto  and  haptizo 
are  of  one  import.  Hence,  Mr.  Franklin's 
bare  assertions,  must  encounter  the  authori- 
ty of  his  own  favorite  critic,  the  authority 
of  Bible  and  classic  usage,  as  well  as  the 
authority  of  the  best  critics  and  lexico- 
graphers that  ever  saw  the  sun !  Is  he  a 
better  scholar  than  Mr.  Carson  and  all  the 
lexicographers  ? 

But  he  tries  to  appear  profound  in  ask- 
ing what  I  went  to  the  types  for.  Had  I 
gone  to  the  types  to  learn  from  the  types 
the  nature  of  a  Christian  ordinance,  there 
might  have  been  some  show  of  propriety 
in  his  course  ;  but  he  knows  I  did  no  sucli 
thing !  I  went  to  the  Old  Testament  to 
see  how  the  word  hapto  was  used  before  the 
coming  of  Christ ;  and  I  found  it!  Although 
the  word  occurs  with  reference  to  the  types, 
it  occurs  just  as  literally  there  as  any  where 


460  DEBATE   ON   THE 

else.  The  gentleman  can  not  escape  the 
responsibility  of  appealing  to  Bible  use  by 
any  such  puerile  harangues  as  that  he  de- 
livered about  the  types.  And  he  tried  to 
show  that  I  was  arguing  in  a  circle  !  But 
did  he  do  it?  No,  sir;  he  did  not.  Bap- 
tism represents  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 
This  I  have  demonstrated.  And  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  said  to  be  "  poured  out,"  in  allu- 
sion to  the  ordinary  method  of  using  water, 
which  is  its  ordained  emblem.  There  is 
no  "circle"  in  this;  but  there  is  an  argu- 
ment against  the  gentleman  which  is  un- 
answerable. 

But  he  was  again  laboring  with  the 
prepositions  eis  and  ek,  in  the  account  of 
the  baptism  in  the  "desert."  He  begins  to 
realize  his  position  as  afl&rmant,  and  with 
a  great  flourish  of  trumpets,  he  puts  forth 
a  rule  to  sustain  the  translation — and  even 
goes  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the  translators 
— King  James'  translators — have  honestly 
translated  the  passage !  But  what  of  all 
this  ?  What  if  1  were  to  admit  the  correct- 
ness of  the  translation — would  that  prove 
that  these  prepositions  express  such  an  en- 
trance and  such  a  going  out,  as  to  involve 
the  idea  of  immersion?  It  certainly  would 
not !  If  they  went  into  the  water  ancle 
deep — and  Mr.  F.  can  never  prove  that  the 
water  was  even  that  deep — the  act  of  going 
in  and  of  coming  out,  would  be  as  correct- 
ly expressed  by  these  prepositions,  as  if 
they  entered  to  a  depth  sufficient   to  cover 


ACTION    OP    BAPTISM.  461 

them.  That  they  did  not  enter  to  a  depth 
to  constitute  immersion,  is  evident  from 
the  account  itself.  For  it  is  said  they  both 
"went  down  into  the  water,"  and  then, 
after  this,  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch.  No 
one  believes  that  Philip  was  immersed  on 
that  occasion,  and  yet,  so  far  as  the  prepo- 
sitions are  concerned,  there  is  precisely  the 
same  evidence  of  his  immersion  that  there 
was  of  the  immersion  of  the  eunuch.  The 
truth  is,  the  only  evidence  in  the  case  is 
not  in  the  prepositions,  but  in  the  word 
baptized ;  and  that,  we  have  seen,  does  not 
necessarily  exj)ress  an  immersion-.  This  is 
the  only  example  of  Christian  baptism  my 
friend  has  adduced  in  proof  of  his  exclu- 
sive proposition;  and  here,  instead  of  jDrov- 
ing  exclusive  immersion,  he  fails  to  make 
out  a  case  of  immersion  at  all !  Before  he 
can  do  this,  he  must  show  that  the  prepo- 
sition eis  necessarily  expresses  an  entrance 
into  the  water — and  that  to  the  extent  of 
immersion ;  but  this  he  can  not  do,  and 
prefers  quibbling  about  the  "translation." 
The  translation,  however,  will  not  help 
tim.  It  is  a  good  rule  of  interpretation, 
that  the  literal  meaning  of  words,  whether 
prepositions  or  otherwise,  is  to  be  preferred, 
unless  there  is  some  actual  demand  to  the 
contrary.  But  did  the  gentleman  prove 
that  into  is  any  more  the  literal  meaning 
of  eis  than  unto  ?  Or  did  he  prove  that 
out  of  is  any  more  the  literal  meaning  of 
ek  than  fiom?     But,  admitting   all   this,  I 


462  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ask  a^aln,  was  iheve  not  a  veal  lii  ml  ranee 
to  a  literal  entranco  into  the  water,  to  a 
depth  necessary  to  effect  an  immersion, 
Avhen  the  water  itself  was  not  of  sufficient 
depth  to  admit  of  immersion? 

Eiit  he  thinks  Paul  made  "a  great 
stretch  of  the  figurative,"  when  he  said 
Moses  "  sprinkled  the  books  and  all  the 
people!"  And  he  insists  thatitisa  '^natu- 
ral and  phj^sical  impossibility"  to  sprinkle 
a  man  in  the  river !  And,  farther,  he  thinks 
there  is  not  a  man  who  can  "  stretch  his 
imagination  to  believe"  that  John  baptized 
by  sprinkling!  Why  does  he  not  just  say 
at  once  that  all  who  profess  to  believe  this, 
are  knaves  and  hypocrites?  This  is  the 
clear  import  of  his  language.  Eut  whether 
the  gentleman  can  '-stretch  his  imagina- 
tion "  to  believe  it  or  not,  I  know  that  it 
is  possible  to  "sprinkle  people  in  the  river," 
for  I  have  seen  it  done.  And  I  have  seen 
them,  after  being  "  sprinkled  in  the  river," 
"go  up  straightway  out  of  the  water!" 
Now  here  is  a  chanue  for  the  gentleman  to 
enlarge  on  the  horrible.  Upon  this  he  can. 
let  out  his  imagination  to  full  "  stretch  "— ^ 
but  the  fact  is  fixed! 

But  the  gentleman  has  been  compelled  to 
"stretch"  his  "charity,"  as  well  as  his 
imagination  !  I  am  a  little  afraid  that  this 
"stretching  "  business  will  j'ct  extend  to 
his  conscience,  but  I  hope  that  is  not  so 
good  material  for  stretching  as  his  imagin- 
ation   has    proved   to  be !      Whenever   he 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  463 

finds  himself  compelled  to  march  right  np 
to  a  jDoint  which  he  can  not  meet  "  fairly 
and  squarely,"  you  see  him  paving  the  way 
by  prefatory  remarks,  expressive  of  strong 
contempt  for  the  very  little  thing  that  stands 
before  him  !  Thus  he  approached  my  ex- 
posure of  his  favorite  idea  that  baptism  is 
a  "  burial."  He  now  sees  that  the  "  burial " 
is  not  the  "baptism;"  that  the  baptism  was 
a  momentary  action,  and  that  the  effect, 
figuratively  called  a  "  burial,"  is  con- 
tinuous ;  that  we  must  remain  buried  with 
Christ,  as  we  remain  dead  to  sin,  and  as 
our  life  continues  hid  with  Christ  in  God, 
or  else  lose  our  interest  in  the  Savior — and 
he  can  not  deny  it !  He  falls  back  upon  the 
language  itself,  upon  the  mere  jingle  of  the 
word  itself,  and  wants  to  know  if  I  be- 
lieve the  word  of  God,  that  they  were 
*^'- buried  with  him  hy  baptism;'^  but  the  word 
of  God  does  not  say  they  "  were,"  but  that 
they  are  buried!  I  know  Mr.  F.  shakes  his 
head  and  calls  it  "  little,"  but  he  must  face 
it.  Nothing  is  little  that  is  essential  to 
the  true  understanding  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. And  you  must  not  forget  that  he  is 
contending  for  a  "literal  burial"  and  a 
"figurative  death  !"  This,  with  him,  is  not 
a  "  mere  trick,"  but  grave  argument — pro- 
found reasoning!  i^or  must  you  forget 
that  he  is  putting  baptism  in  the  room 
and  stead  of  the  Lord's  supper,  by  making 
it  an  emblem  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

31 


164  DEBATE    OS    THE 

The  gentleman  occasionally  tells  a  bit  of 
his  exjDei'ience,  and  applies  it  to  me.  He 
is  evidently  "  sick  "  of  the  argument  from 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  In  every  turn 
he  gives  it,  he  perpetrates  the  blunder  of 
involving  himself  in  materialism.  He  in- 
sists that  the  Spirit  would  have  been 
poured  out,  if  there  had  been  no  people 
there  !  I  will  not  stop  to  inquire  as  to  the 
abstract  possibility  of  this  ;  for  it  has  not 
the  least  shadow  of  bearing  on  the  issue; 
but  then  we  have  a  plain  matter  of  fact  be- 
fore us — not  what  could  have  been,  but 
what  actually  was.  The  question  is — did 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  fulfill  the  promise  made  to  the 
disciples,  that  they  should  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost?  'No  unprejudiced  mind 
can  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  say  it  did. 
No  quibbling  about  what  could  have  been 
is  necessary  to  a  full,  clear  and  satisfactory 
answer.  If  it  did  not,  that  promise  was 
never  fulfilled  !  No  baptism  by  the  Spirit, 
after  the  pouring  out,  is  recorded  or  hinted 
at.  The  idea  is  preposterous.  No  grander 
figment  ever  sprang  from  the  brain  of  a 
sane  man.  And  his  play  upon  the  word 
*'  p)Our,"  as  applied  to  the  Spirit,  is  equally 
futile.  The  Spirit  on  that  day  did  a  great 
work  for  the  Apostles.  It  inspired  their 
souls  with  light,  life  and  love  ;  it  gave  them 
tongues  and  wisdom  and  power  they  never 
had  before  ;  they  were  truly  "filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.'"     The  prediction  that  the 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  465 

Spirit  should  be  "  iDOiired  out  "  was  emi- 
nently fulfilled ;  for  they  were  then  and 
there  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Just 
so  in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  "  While  Peter 
yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 
on  all  them  that  heard  the  word."  Peter 
was  reminded  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
recognized  it  as  a  baptism.  He  immediately 
commanded  them  to  be  baptized  with  water, 
because  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost. 
When  he  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  gave 
an  account  of  the  matter,  he  said,  "And 
as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost /e?^  on 
them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then  re- 
membered I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  you 
with  water  ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost;"  Acts  xi.  15-16.  Ko 
man  not  blinded  by  devotion  to  his  creed,  can 
read  this  and  deny  that  the  action  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  Avhich  fulfilled  the  prediction 
of  Joel  respecting  the  pouring  out,  was  the 
baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  promised  by 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  if  so,  the  bap- 
tism was  not  immersion.  My  friend  knows 
this.  Hence  his  attempt  to  show  that  the 
baptism  was  after  the  pouring  out. 

The  gentleman  is  still  in  trouble  about 
the  "  certain  water  "  in  the  desert,  which 
he  calls  a  "river."  And  he  has  immersed 
in  creeks  in  less  than  five  miles  from  their 
source!  I  w^ill  not  dispute  the  fact.  It  is 
very  probable  he  has.  I  have  seen  a  dam 
built  across  a  pretty  large  creek   in  order 


466  DEBATE    ON   THE 

to  secure  a  depth  sufficient  for  immersion. 
But  that  was  not  in  Palestine.  There  is  a 
difference  between  the  creeks  here  and 
there.  The  "certain  water"  was  just  as 
apt  to  have  been  a  well,  with  arrangements 
made  for  watering  animals,  as  a  creek  ;  or 
it  might  have  been  a  boiling  spring  issuing 
from  the  sandy  soil ;  there  is  nothing  in 
the  account  to  antagonize  either  hypothe- 
sis. My  friend  can  find  nothing,  except  by 
forcing  the  prepositions.  As  to  the  little 
spring  branch  that  originated  in  the  moun- 
tains, and  ran  down  through  the  valley  of 
Sorek,  it  is  evident  that  if  the  road  from 
Jerusalem  to  Graza  crossed  it  at  all,  it 
was  at  or  very  near  its  source  in  the  moun- 
tains ;  and  it  is  also  evident  that  when 
springs,  even  in  this  country,  afford  water 
sufficient  to  immerse  in  within  five  miles  of 
their  source,  it  is  not  in  the  mountains,  but 
in  the  valleys,  where  the  current  is  slug- 
gish. The  gentleman  must  try  again.  His 
exj^erience  in  this  country  will  not  set 
aside  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  writers 
in  regard  to  the  physical  geography  of 
Palestine.  I  know  he  hates  to  give  up  this 
his  only  example  of  Apostolic  practice — 
but  he  can't  help  himself. 

jReturning  from  his  fruitless  search  after 
a  river  in  the  "  hill  country  of  Judea,"  the 
gentleman  tries  to  comfort  himself  by  the 
reflection  that  "confusion  reigns"  in  my 
camp  !  He  sets  forth  seven  propositions 
in  numerical  order,  as  indicating  the  con- 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  467 

tradictory  positions  I  have  taken.  I  have 
no  desire  to  retort  by  caricaturing  the  gen- 
tleman. My  soul  loathes  such  trickery ! 
But  I  will  say  to  him.  in  all  plainness  and 
kindness,  that  if  he  will  take  my  positions, 
as  I  make  them,  and  point  out  a  single  in- 
consistency or  contradiction,  I  will  confess 
it  frankly  before  the  world,  and  abandon 
forever  the  doctrine  that  requires  it.  Here 
is  a  fair  proposition.  The  gentleman  loves 
to  compare  the  points  of  my  doctrine. 
Here  is  a  fair  opportunity  for  him  to  exer- 
cise his  powers  to  their  utmost  capacity. 
I  challenge  him  to  the  task. 

After  his  luminous  expose  of  my  posi- 
tions, the  gentleman  returns  to  the  argu- 
ment from  the  "burial,"  as  if  conscious 
that  he  had  left  it  in  a  bad  plight.  And 
finding  himself  unable  to  analyze  the  pas- 
sages, and  reply  to  my  argument,  he 
attempts  to  shake  your  confidence  in  what 
1  have  said,  by  appealing  to  great  names. 
I  revere  the  names  of  Wesley,  Clarke  and 
Calvin,  as  much  as  it  is  proper  to  revere 
human  beings ;  but  when  it  comes  to  inter- 
preting a  passage  of  G-od's  word,  I  bow  to 
no  human  authority.  I  examine  what 
others  have  said,  use  their  labors,  avail 
myself  of  all  the  aids  the  learning  of  great 
men  can  afi'ord — but,  after  all,  I  must  be 
permitted  to  do  my  own  thinking.  If  I 
do  not  assign  good  reasons  for  differing 
from  those  wise  and  good  men,  when  I  see 
fit  to  diverge  from  their  path,  then  let  me 


4G8  DEBATE   ON   THE 

bear  the  brand  of  presuraption.  But  in 
this  case,  I  could  present  names  of  equal 
worth  with  those  named  by  him,  who  sus- 
tain my  view  of  these  Scriptures  in  every 
material  part.  Eut  we  are  not  here  to 
contend  about  the  opinions  of  men.  Our 
business  is  with  divine  truth.  And  the 
gentleman  undertakes  a  hopeless  task, 
when  he  seeks  for  immersion  in  these 
Scriptures.  But  he  asks  Avhether  the  bap- 
tism was  of  sufferings,  of  Spirit,  of  fire,  or 
of  water,  by  which  they  were  buried.  I 
answer,  frankly,  that,  in  my  humble  opin- 
ion, Christian  baptism  was  meant  by  the 
Apostle  ;  but  he  must  not  overlook  what  I 
have  so  often  pressed  upon  his  attention, 
that  the  burial  was  not  the  baptism,  l^ov 
were  the  members  of  the  church  at  Eome 
and  CoUosse  buried  in  the  water,  nor  into 
the  water,  but  into  the  death  of  Christ — 
where  they  remain  buried  as  long  as  they 
have  any  interest  in  him.  And  just  here 
the  gentleman  fell  into  his  old  habit, 
against  which  I  so  particularly  cautioned 
him.  He  said  I  "  resort  to  the  Spirit.  The 
burial  represents  the  work  of  the  Spirit!" 
'Now  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  believe  that 
he  did  not  know  better  than  to  represent 
me  thus.  But  his  is  the  responsibility.  If 
he  will  knowingly  misrepresent  me,  I  vio- 
late no  rule  in  pointing  it  out,  and  charging 
it  home.  If  he  did  it  in  his  "confusion," 
he  is  excusable.  If  not  in  confusion,  he 
stands   convicted.     But   I   never   said  the 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  469 

burhil  represents  the  work  of  tlie  Spirit. 
My  position  was  clearly  taken  that  it  was 
the  baptism  that  represents  the  work  of  the 
Spirit.  By  this  I  stand  invulnerable.  But 
I  have  ever  contended  that  the  "  burial  " 
was  distinct  from  the  "  baptism."  That 
which  is  done  by  baptism,  is  of  necessity 
distinct  from  baptism.  Hence  his  labor  to 
show  that  I  hold  that  the  baptism  by 
which  the  baptized  are  "  buried,"  is  that  of 
the  Hol}^  Spirit,  is  all  fruitless.  The  truth 
is,  he  denies  that  any  are  baptized  by  the 
Spirit  at  all,  except  those  who  received 
power  to  work  miracles.  He  is  in  deep 
confusion  and  perplexity  in  relation  to  this 
whole  subject.  In  overlooking  the  legal 
and  moral  aspects  of  the  Christian  system, 
he  is  utterly  unable  to  find  the  founda- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  or  to  comprehend 
their  nature,  design  and  import.  Ho  needs 
to  be  taught  the  first  princij^les  of  the  ora- 
cles of  Grod.  But  he  is  not  aware  of  his 
condition,  and  will  not  believe  me  when  I 
point  it  out.  Yet  I  do  not  despair  of  help- 
ing him.  I  see  he  is  not  past  feeling,  and 
hence  there  is  hope.  When  the  excitement 
of  debate  wears  oif,  he  may  see  the  great 
truths  of  the  gospel  in  a  difterent  light, 
enlarge  the  boundaries  of  his  intellectual 
vision,  and  emerge  from  the  darkness  in 
which  he  is  "  buried,"  into  the  pure  sun- 
shine of  heavenly  truth  ! 

But  I   must  again   remind   you   of   the 
progress  we  are  making.     Bible  usage  is  in 


470  DEBATE    ON   THE 

favor  of  the  generic  sense  of  hapto  and  hap- 
tizo.  This  is  put  beyond  the  reach  of  cavil. 
Carson,  Mr.  Franklin's  old  favorite,  in 
spite  of  himself,  lends  his  testimony  in  our 
favor.  He  declares,  and  proves,  that  hapto 
means  to  dye  hy  sprinkling^  as  literally  as  by 
dipping ;  and  there  is  no  rule  of  language 
that  will  make  bapto  express  the  "  sprink- 
ling "  of  coloring  liquid,  and  yet  be  inca- 
pable of  expressing  the  sprinkling  of  water. 
So  far  as  mode  is  concerned,  there  is  no 
difference  in  sprinkling  water  and  coloring 
liquid.  Then  Carson  sustains  me,  and  con- 
tradicts my  friend.  The  appeal  to  the 
classics  does  the  same.  And  the  lexicons 
are  but  the  echo  of  Bible  use  and  classic 
use.  They  also  give  several  distinct  mean- 
ings to  these  words.  Use,  the  sole  arbiter 
of  language,  compels  them  to  do  it.  The 
meaning  of  the  word,  tried  by  every  rule, 
is  decidedl3'  in  my  favor.  It  is  generic — 
expressing  an  action  without  declaring  its 
mode.  Then  the  circumstancs  under  which 
that  action  was  performed  by  the  Apostles, 
are  decidedly  unfavorable  to  the  idea,  that 
it  was  by  immersion.  They  baptized  three 
thousand  in  one  city,  where  there  was  no 
river,  in  part  of  a  day.  They  baptized  in 
the  desert,  where  no  large  stream  of  water 
flows.  They  baptized,  in  three  distinct  in- 
stances, where  all  the  circumstances,  and 
the  scope  of  the  history,  prove  it  to  have 
been  in  the  house.  The  pouring  out  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  called  a  baptism.     The  fire 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  471 

that  sat  upon  the  Apostles  was  a  baptism. 
The  legal  washings  of  the  Jews,  mostly 
done  by  sprinkling,  were  baptisms.  The 
religious  cleansing  of  themselves  and  house- 
hold utensils  were  baptisms.  All  this  is 
clear  and  unquestionable.  And  yet  the 
gentleman  tells  you  I  have  no  position, 
and  have  proved  nothing!  And  he  states 
a  question  of  fact  which  I  deny  positively. 
It  is  that  the  most  intelligent  of  our  mem- 
bers are  in  doubt  and  perplexity  as  to  their 
baptism.  A  more  unfounded  assertion  can 
not  be  made.  Our  people  are  satisfied.  If 
any  are  not,  it  must  be  such  as  fall  under 
the  proselyting  influence  of  immersionists, 
who  would  be  better  employed  in  leading 
penitents  to  Christ,  than  in  disturbing  the 
consciences  of  the  weaker  and  inexperi- 
enced members  of  other  churches,  about 
the  mere  form  of  using  water  in  baptism. 
The  gentleman's  oft  repeated  assertion, 
that  I  have  great  trouble  in  satisfying  my 
members,  is  without  the  least  shadow  of 
support.  'jSot  only  are  our  members  satis- 
fied with  their  baptism,  but  they  are  satis- 
fied to  let  other  people  think  for  them- 
selves. They  have  their  faith,  their 
opinions,  their  doctrines,  but  they  do  not 
find  it  necessary  to  keep  themselves  in  the 
faith  by  perpetual  debate.  Millions  of  hon- 
est Christians  as  ever  breathed,  have  lived 
and  died  without  immersion,  and  gone  to 
heaven  in  triumph.  This  Mr,  F.  dare  not 
dispute.     Then  what  is  all  his  special  plead- 


472  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ing  about?  I  know  his  tactics.  He  aims 
to  impress  the  illiterate.  He  aims  to  make 
you  believe,  too,  that  the  persons  who  oc- 
casionally become  disaifected,  and  suffer 
themselves  to  be  lead  awaj^  by  proselyting 
influences,  are  our  more  substantial  mem- 
bers. This  will  all  do  for  effect,  but  where 
the  facts  are  known,  it  is  ridiculous.  One 
of  the  most  zealous  immersionists  I  ever 
knew,  once  invited  me  to  his  house  to  con- 
vince me  that  immersion  was  the  only  bap- 
tism, and  that  infant  baptism  was  an  inno- 
vation ;  but  in  less  than  half  a  day  he  con- 
fessed that  he  had  been  duped — that  there 
was  no  immersion  in  the  Bible,  and  prom- 
ised to  have  his  children  baptized  the  first 
opportunity.  There  is  a  man  in  this  con- 
gregation of  undoubted  integrity,  ready  to 
give  names,  dates  and  locality  of  persons 
raised  under  Ba23tist  influence,  who,  after 
being  immersed,  became  satisfied  that  af- 
fusion was  more  scriptural,  and  applied  to 
the  Methodist  preacher  to  be  baptized  by 
sprinkling.  But  what  of  all  this  ?  It  is  a 
full  offset  to  all  he  has  said  about  persons 
becoming  dissatisfied — but  I  make  no  ac- 
count of  it.  I  appeal  to  the  Bible,  and  not 
to  the  prejudices,  fears  or  passions  of  the 
people.  Perfection  is  not  in  his  church  nor 
mine.  Invidious  comparisons  I  will  not 
make.  Truth  needs  no  props.  We  all 
need  to  mourn  and  seek  for  more  grace,  to 
emulate  the  virtues  of  the  good,  to  avoid 
the  errors  of  the  wayward,  and  to  aid   and 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  473 

instruct  the  feeble  and  ignorant.  But  we 
should  not  disparage  the  efforts  of  any  who 
try  to  serve  God.  Nor  should  we-  disturb 
the  consciences  of  the  weak  in  regard  to 
outward  forms. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  NINTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

With  me,  this  is  not  a  mere  conflict  with 
my  worthy  opponent.  I  am  not  seeking  a 
victory  over  him,  or  over  his  brethren.  I 
am  seeking  a  victory  of  truth  over  error, 
of  light  over  darkness,  of  a  clear  and 
divinely  authorized  practice  over  confu- 
sion, irregularity  and  uncertainty.  In  my 
feeble  efforts,  I  have  been  trying  to  extri- 
cate the  public  mind  from  uncertainty, 
doubt  and  disappointment,  from  that 
which  is  unreliable,  unsatisfactory  and  dis- 
tracting, and  place  it  upon  that  which  is 
infallibly  safe,  satisfactory  and  reliable.  I 
am  weary  of  this  interminable  strife,  this 
constant  disagreement  and  vexatious  wran- 
gle. But  how  are  we  to  get  rid  of  it,  un- 
less we  can  find  something  that  is  truly 
orthodox,  evangelical  and  catholic  ?  We 
can  never  get  rid  of  it  so  long  as  that 
which  has  been  in  doubt  ever  since  its  in- 
troduction is  practiced.  So  long  as  that 
which  is  doubtful,  uncertain  and  unsatis- 
factory— that  which  has  been  in  dispute 
among  as  good  men  as  the  world  contains — 


474  DEBATE   ON   THE 

that  which  has  been  nothing  but  a  bone  of 
contention  ever  since  its  existence,  an  oc- 
casion for  strife  and  a  stumbling-block  to 
thousands,  is  practiced,  maintained  and 
urged  upon  the  people,  we  can  have  no 
Christian  union,  harmony  and  uniformity. 
Thousands  of  as  sincere  people  as  the 
world  contains,  are  every  year  being  in- 
duced to  receive  sprinkling  or  pouring  for 
baptism — in  many  instances  through  much 
persuasion  and  contrary  to  the  convictions 
of  their  own  consciences.  Thousands,  and 
may  I  not  say  that  millions  have  sprinkling 
imposed  upon  them  for  baptism  not  only 
without  their  choice  or  consent,  but  be- 
fore they  knew  there  was  a  G-od,  a  church, 
or  a  Bible.  How  is  it  possible  for  such 
procedure  as  this  to  prove  any  thing  else 
than  unsatisfactory  ?  These,  in  scores,  are 
becoming  dissatisfied,  discontented  and 
doubtful  whether  they  have  obeyed  the 
commandment  of  Grod.  These  are  then 
twitted,  for  their  comfort,  with  being  weak- 
minded  and  ignorant  people.  But  this,  it 
is  well  known,  in  this  country,  is  not  the 
case.  They  are  as  well-informed,  as  pious 
and  conscientious  as  any  to  be  found.  In- 
deed, they  are  the  conscientious  especially. 
Those  who  have  no  conscience  in  the  mat- 
ter, of  course,  have  no  trouble  about  it. 
They  care  nothing  about  it,  feel  nothing 
about  it  and  can  laugh  at  and  trifle  with 
the  pious,  godly  and  solemn  concern  of 
those  who  fear  that  they  have  not  done  the 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  475 

commandments  of  God.  IJ^To  one  can  count 
the  dissatisfaction  growing  out  of  this 
doubtful  practice.  If  you  could  know  the 
trouble  the  preachers  have  to  pacify  the 
minds  of  their  own  members,  you  would 
see  a  sad  picture.  'No  one  can  count  the 
trouble  that  persons  have  had,  the  pro- 
tracted trouble,  uneasiness  and  discontent, 
all  growing  out  of  practicing,  imposing 
upon  and  leading  the  people  into  the  doubt- 
ful, uncertain  and  groundless  practice  of 
sprinkling  and  pouring  for  baptism. 

Who  is  to  blame  for  all  this?  IS'ot  the 
people;  for  they  are  not  pressing  sprinkling 
or  pouring  upon  the  preachers.  l!^ot  all 
the  preachers  ;  for  many  of  them  practice 
nothing  for  baptism  that  is  doubtful,  noth- 
ing that  leaves  the  people  in  doubt  and 
uncertainty  ;  nothing  that  fails  to  satisfy 
the  conscience.  Who,  then,  is  to  blame  for 
all  this  dissatisfaction  ?  Who  is  to  answer 
in  the  day  of  judgment  for  the  thousands, 
and  even  millions,  that  have  had  a  practice 
imposed  upon  them  that  they  have  con- 
stantly doubted  and  with  which  they  have 
been  dissatisfied  ever  since  they  thought 
for  themselves?  Who  is  to  blame  for  all 
our  contention  and  strife  arising  from  this 
matter?  Those,  and  those  only,  who 
preach,  urge  upon  and  impose  upon  the 
people  that  which  has  always  been  in  doubt 
and  uncertainty,  when  they  could  have 
practiced  that  about  which  there  is  no 
doubt.     Why  does  ray  worthy  friend  prac- 


476  DEBATE    OxN    THE 

tice  sprinkling?  Is  it  because  he  does  not 
believe  in  immersion  ?  jSTo ;  for  he  says, 
"God  forbid  that  I  should  say  any  thing 
against  immersion."  He  jiractices  immer- 
sion some  of  the  time,  which  shows  that  he 
has  no  conscientious  scruples  about  it.  He 
opens  and  reads  from  Wesley  and  Clarke, 
that  the  ancient  manner  was  immersion. 
He  knows  that  Luther  and  Calvin,  without 
hesitation,  declared  that  the  ancient  man- 
ner of  baptizing  was  immersion.  He 
knows  that  his  discipline  requires  him  to 
immerse  under  certain  circumstances.  All 
the  preachers  of  any  considerable  informa- 
tion know  this  and  know  that  there  is  no 
doubt  and  uncertainty  about  immersion. 
They  know  that  those  immersed  are  satis- 
fied, their  conscience  is  at  rest  and  they 
have  no  more  trouble  about  it.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  apology  for  continuing  a 
doubtful  practice,  when  we  can  have  one 
without  doubt,  an  uncertain  when  we  could 
have  a  certain  practice,  that  which  in  such 
numerous  instances  proves  unsatisfactory, 
when  they  could  practice  that  which  so 
uniformly  renders  satisfaction. 

"Who  is  to  blame  for  involving  the  whole 
country  in  doubt  and  uncertainty,  in  con- 
fusion and  perplexity  among  conflicting 
practices  and  rival  customs  ?  Manifestly 
those  who  maintain  and  try  to  justify  con- 
flicting practices,  and  not  those  who  prac- 
tice nothing  only  the  ancient  and  apostolic 
practice  and  that  which  is  admitted  by  all 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  477 

to  be  valid.  That  immersion  was  the  an- 
cient practice,  the  apostolic  practice,  and 
admitted  by  all  to  be  valid  ;  or  that  immer- 
sion is  orthodox,  evangelical  and  catholic  ; 
that  it  is  safe,  infallibly  safe  and  satisfac- 
tory, is  irfdispntable  and  undeniable.  It  is 
that  npon  which  we  all  agree  and  can 
practice  without  any  violation  of  conscience. 
Let  it  then  become  the  invariable  practice, 
and  all  dissatisfaction  and  trouble  and  con- 
fusion Avill  cease.  The  doubts  and  dis- 
quietudes will  disappear,  and  one  grand 
stc])  will  be  taken  for  the  union  of  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  and  one  of  the  greatest  bones 
of  contention  will  be  laid  aside.  But  to 
talk  of  any  peace,  any  satisfaction  or 
quietude,  ever  obtaining,  while  this  doubt- 
ful and  unsatisfactory  practice  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring  is  kept  up  among  us,  is  out  of 
the  question.  We  can  not  have  a  contra- 
riety of  practice  without  trouble,  in  a  mat- 
ter, like  this,  that  concerns  all. 

The  worthy  gentleman  has  furnished  us 
with  some  very  important  and,  I  might  say, 
very  special  information  touching  the  Phil- 
ippian  jail  and  Jailor  !  I  have  had  the  for- 
tune to  find  no  gentleman  so  perfectly  con- 
versant with  that  whole  matter  as  he.  The 
men  I  have  heard  speak  of  it,  generally  were 
confined  to  the  Bible  and  other  books  for 
thoir  information  about  the  matter,  but  Mr. 
M.  has  furnished  information  not  found  in 
the  Bible  or  any  other  book.  He  learns 
that   the  Jailor's  house  was  in  the  prison ; 


478  DEBATE    ON    THE 

that  when  ''  he  brought  them  out,"  as  the 
Scripture  says,  it  was  simply  out  of  the  in- 
ner prison^  and  that  when  he  spoke  to  the 
Jailor  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  he  was  still  in  the  prison, 
though  not  the  inner,  but  the  outer  prison ; 
and  that  when  the  Jailor  tooJ^  them  the  same 
hour  of  the  night  and  was  baptized,  he  and 
all  his,  straightway,  they  were  out  of  the 
Jailor's  house,  but  still  in  the  prison,  and 
when  he  took  them  into  his  house  again, 
they  were  all  still  in  the  prison!  JS^ow 
there  are  several  things  in  this  that  I  wish 
the  worthy  gentleman  to  be  a  little  particu- 
lar about — as,  for  instance,  1st,  I  should  like 
to  know  how  he  found  out  with  such  infal- 
lible certainty  that  the  Jailor's  house  was 
in  the  Philipian  jail,  the  inner  prison,  or 
the  outer.  Is  not  this,  a  fiction  of  his  own 
imagination,  and  no  information  at  all? 
"Where  has  a  jailor  resided,  with  his  family, 
inajDrison?  This  is  truly  a  new  chapter 
of  enlightenment  touching  jails  and  jailor's  ! 
2ud,  Where  did  he  learn  that  when  the  jail- 
or took  Paul  and  Silas  and  washed  their 
stripes  and  was  baptized,  he  was  simply 
out  of  his  own  house,  but  in  the  Jail  f  They 
were  outof  the  jailor's  house  when  the  jail- 
or was  baptized.  That  much  is  clear.  But 
who  told  the  gentleman  that  they  were  in 
the -prison?  Nobody  told  him  so;  he  can 
furnish  no  evidence  of  that  sort.  He  si)rang 
in  and  "  brought  them  out,"  and  they  spoke 
to  him  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  the 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  479 

word  of  the  Lord.  They  were  in  the  Jail- 
or's house  when  this  was  done.  The  Jailor 
took  them  the  same  hour  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his,  straightway.  They  were 
now  out  of  the  Jailor's  house ;  for  he  brought 
them  into  Jiis  Jiome.  Here,  then,  Mr.  M.  and 
myself  agree  that  they  were  out  of  the  Jail- 
or's house.  What  does  he  found  his  argu- 
ment against  immersion  upon  ?  Upon  his 
naked  assertion,  that  when  they  were 
out  of  the  jailor's  house  they  were  in  the 
prison.  This  is  precisely  what  he  has  no 
authority  for ;  and  yet,  without  this,  he  has 
no  argument.  He  assumes  that  there  was 
no  water  to  immerse  in  the  prison,  and 
then  assumes  that  the  baptizing  was  in  the 
prison ;  and  upon  these  two  assumptions 
he  founds  an  objection  to  immersion.  The 
true  state  of  the  case  is,  that  the  first  thing 
the  Jailor  did,  he  brought  them  out.  They 
then  spoke  to  him  and  all  in  his  house.  This 
was  evidently  in  the  jailor's  house  and  not 
in  the  prison  at  all.  They  were  out  to  bap- 
tize, or  the  jailor  could  not  have  brought 
them  info  his  house,  as  the  Scripture  says 
he  did  ;  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  evi- 
dence that  while  they  were  out  of  the  jail- 
or's house,  they  were  back  in  the  prison 
again. 

In  the  midst  of  the  troubles  of  my  wor- 
thy friend,  he  imagines  a  tremendous  spar- 
sity  of  water  about  Jerusalem,  and  the  very 
little  to  be  found,  like  some  of  our  modern 
meeting-houses,  under  lock  and   key,  and 


480  DEBATE   ON   THE 

not  at  all  accessible  to  Christians.  But  he 
must  recollect  that,  bitter  as  the  persecution 
was  then,  they  delivered  the  second  ser- 
mon in  Solomon's  porch,  which  was  not  yet 
locked  against  the  Christians.  They  fre- 
quently had  the  privilege  of  speaking  in 
the  synagogues,  which  shows  that  the 
modern  device  of  locks  and  prohibiting 
pools  was  not  resorted  to,  as  a  means  of 
opposing  the  gospel,  till  a  later  period.  But, 
to  relieve  the  gentleman  from  all  trouble 
about  obtaining  water  to  immerse  any 
number  of  people  in  Jerusalem,  I  will 
state  to  him  that  I  have  a  work  lying  be- 
fore me,  written  by  a  man  who  spent  more 
than  three  years  in  Jerusalem,  containing 
numerous  authorities,  before  the  time  of  tlie 
Apostles,  cotemporary  with  them  and  ex- 
tending down  three  hundred  years,  show- 
ing, in  the  most  ample  manner,  that  all  the 
gentleman's  trouble  about  water,  is  nothing 
but  the  variest  fiction  ever  uttered.  Has 
Mr.  M.  ever  read  of  the  Moulton  Sea,  hav- 
ing constantly  passing  through  it  an  im- 
mense quantity  of  running  w^ater  ?  Has 
he  ever  read  of  the  Brook  Kidron  ;  the 
pool  of  Gileon  and  the  Pool  of  Siloam  ? 
'No  man  who  has  paid  any  attention  to  the 
Bible  account  could  doubt  for  one  moment 
that  there  was  abundance  of  water  for  bap- 
tizing in  Jerusalem.  The  very  circum- 
stance of  his  making  such  a  baseless  objec- 
tion to  immersion,  shows  the  want  of  a  real 
objection.  Nothing  can  be  more  ridiculous 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  481 

and  groundless  than  the  idea  that  there 
was  not  water  in  Jerusalem  to  immerse. 
I  can  not  bring  myself  to  feel  that  such  a 
futile  and  baseless  objection  can  need  any 
grave  reply  for  the  benefit  of  this  intelli- 
gent audience. 

But  I  demand  of  those  who  hear  me,  if 
they  please,  to  reflect,  and  see  if  they  can 
find  any  thing  that  my  worthy  friend  has 
produced  that  can  j)ossibly  satisfy  any 
humao  being  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  is 
baptism,  or  that  any  thing  but  immersion 
is.  What  is  the  amount  of  his  argument? 
I  feel  like  making  an  effort  to  sum  up  his 
argument,  that  you  may  enjoy  the  full 
benefit  of  it.  It  amounts  to  something  like 
the  following : 

1.  Twelve  men  could  not  have  immersed 
three  thousand  people  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost;  therefore,  they  must  have  been 
sprinkled  or  poured  upon. 

2.  John  the  Baptist  could  not  have  im- 
mersed the  vast  multitudes  said  to  have 
been  baptized  by  him,  in  the  short  time 
allotted  to  him  for  the  work  ;  therefore,  he 
must  have  sprinkled  or  poured  water  upon 
them. 

3.  That  "  certain  water,"  that  PhilijD  and 
the  eunuch  are  said  to  have  "  went  down 
into  "  and  "  came  uj)  out  of,"  was  not  sufii- 
cient  to  immerse  ;  therefore,  Philip  must 
have  sprinkled  him. 

4.  There  are  frozen  regions  and  sandy 
deserts   where   no   water   to  immerse   can 


482  DEBATE   ON    THE 

be  had  ;  therefore,  sprinkling  or  pouring 
must  be  modes  of  valid  baptism.  This 
argument  is  very  convincing! 

5.  From  the  fact  that  Saul  was  in  the 
house  when  Ananias  came  to  him,  he 
infers  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house  ; 
and  if  baptized  in  the  house,  he  infers  that 
he  could  not  have  been  immersed ;  but 
must  have  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon. 

G.  From  the  fact  that  Peter  preached  to 
Cornelius  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house, 
he  infers  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house, 
and  therefore  could  not  have  been  immers- 
ed, but  must  have  been  sprinkled  or  poured 
upon. 

7.  From  the  fact  that  the  Jailor  took 
Paul  and  Silas  out,  and  allowed  them  to 
preach  to  him  and  all  that  were  in  his 
house,  and  from  the  fact  that  he  took  them 
the  same  hoiir  of  the  night  and  was  bap- 
tized and  brought  them  into  his  house,  he 
infers  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  prison, 
and  infers  that  there  was  no  water  there  to 
immerse  in,  from  which  he  infers  that  they 
must  have  been  sprinkled.  This  is  a  very 
strong  argument,  founded  upon  three  in- 
ferences. 

8.  He  actually  finds  the  word  sprinhle, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  where  there  is  not 
the  remotest  reference  to  baptism,  from 
which  he  infers  that  si^rinkling  is  a  mode 
of  baptism. 

9.  He  finds  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said 
to  have  been  poured  out,  and  asserts,  without 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  483 

any  authority,  that  this  pour'mg  was  bap- 
tism, from  which  he  infers  that  j?own?iy  is  a 
mode  of  baptism. 

10.  "  Buried  in  baptism,"  he  thinks  rep- 
resents the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  hence 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  burial^  and 
baptism  represents  that  work  ]  hence  bap- 
tism must  be  a  burial ! 

I  had  plenty  of  time,  and  have  thus 
aided  my  friend  in  summing  up  his  argu- 
ment and  in  keeping  it  before  the  audience. 
Eut  I  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  one  or 
two  other  points  before  my  time  expires. 
I  am  in  no  trouble  in  the  world  about  say- 
ing that  immersion  is  baptism,  and  baptism 
is  immersion.  I  meant  just  what  I  said 
and  said  just  what  I  meant.  "Baptism 
does  not  even  contain  all  of  the  abstract 
idea  of  entering  into  the  water."  It  contains 
simply  the  idea  of  immersion  ;  no  more  or 
no  less,  no  matter  whether  in  water  or 
fire.  I  have  produced  baptism  and  called 
his  attention  to  it  over  and  over  again 
where  he  knows  there  is  no  ordinance  ;  but, 
as  yet,  it  appears  I  have  not  penetrated 
his  mind  with  the  idea.  There  must  be 
something  more  than  immersion,  or  bap- 
tism, which  is  precisely  the  same,  before 
you  have  the  ordinance.  There  must  be  a 
proper  subject,  and  the  immersion  must  be 
performed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  before 
the  rite  or  ordinance  is  present.  I  did  not 
ask  the  gentleman  to  affirm  that  sprinkling 
is  the  ordinance^  but  that  it  is  baptism,  or, 
if  you  please,  the  action. 


484  DEBATE   ON   THE 

The  gentleman  dispenses  with  the  learned 
Dr.  Lillie  and  Mr.  Carson,  with  the  snap 
of  his  finger.  Dr.  Lillie  is  no  authority — 
not  even  worth  the  snap  of  the  gentleman's 
finger — because  he  is  hired  by  the  Bible 
Union.  Indeed;  and  were  not  the  King 
James'  translators  hired?  those  men  whom 
he  talked  so  sympathetically  over.  Does 
the  fact  that  a  man  is  hired  to  work,  prove 
that  his  work  is  not  worth  the  snap  of  a 
finger?  If  so,  his  brethren  had  better  stop 
his  salary  and  not  hire  him.  He  knows 
the  influence  hiring  has  upon  a  man  experi- 
mentally, and  therefore  can  speak  freely  ! 

Mr.  Carson  must  be  set  aside,  because  he 
is  ^  partisan^  though  he  is  a  learned  man  ! 
He  loas  a  partisan,  and  belonged  to  the 
strictest  sect  of  partisans  ;  and  his  learning 
and  honest  investigations  cost  him  the  loss 
of  his  salary.  He  was  a  Presbyterian,  en- 
joying a  comfortable  salary  in  a  large 
church  in  Scotland,  when  he  undertook  to 
investigate  this  subject.  His  investiga- 
tions lead  to  his  immersion.  This  testi- 
mony is  not  to  be  set  aside,  by  Mr.  M., 
who,  if  he  came  into  the  church  according 
to  his  Discipline,  in  his  infancy,  had  no 
more  to  do  in  deciding  what  church  he 
would  belong  to  tban  in  determining  the 
time  when  he  would  be  born  into  this 
world.  ISTor  has  Mr.  M.  any  foundation  for 
the  assertion,  frequently  repeated,  that  I 
have  forsaken  Carson.  The  position  of 
Carson  that  I  walked  out  upon,  I  maintain 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  485 

yet  as  firmly  as  ever,  and  shall,  if  God  will, 
embody  it  in  my  recapitulation  ;  but  I  do 
not  allow  any  opponent  to  lead  me,  when 
I  am  in  the  affirmative,  especially  when  I 
could  not  induce  him  to  affirm.  I  pay 
attention  to  such  things  as  I  think  need 
reply,  and  such  as  I  know  have  no  force, 
and  will  make  no  impression,  I  let  pass. 

If  nothing  will  do  my  worthy  friend 
only  to  be  exposed,  in  his  little  and  unsup- 
ported cavil  about  the  tense,  Rom.  vi.  4,  I 
will  just  inform  him  that  the  tense  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  the  third  and  fourth 
verses  in  the  original.  The  third  verse 
reads,  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death."  Here,  you  per- 
ceive, it  is,  '■'-were  baptized."  The  tense  of 
the  fourth  verse,  in  the  original,  is  precisely 
the  same,  and,  in  English,  should  read, 
"  Therefore,  we  were  buried  with  him  by 
baptism."  There  is  not  a  particle  of  ground 
for  changing  the  tense  from  the  past,  as 
found  expressed  twice  over  in  the  third 
verse,  and  giving  us  the  present  tense, 
verse  fourth.  If  the  gentleman  will  appeal 
to  his  Grreek  Testament,  and  speak  with 
the  same  candor  he  did  in  his  last  speech, 
in  admitting  that  Christian  baptism  is  here 
meamt,  he  will  admit  that  it  is  the  past 
tense,  and  consequently  his  argument,  that 
they  are  still  in  the  burial  is  precisely  as 
strong  as  that  they  are  still  in  their 
baptism. 


48tl  BEJBATE    ON    THE 

Now  if  Mr.  M.  please,  I  ask  him  to  take 
one  deliberate  look  at  this  passage.  The 
baptism,  he  now  admits,  here  spoken  of,  is 
Christian  baptism.  This  passage  says 
they  were  "  buried  with  him  by  baptism." 
The  burial  was  the  result  of  baptizing. 
The  fact  is  stated  that  they  were  huried 
with  Mill.  How  was  this  done?  The  an- 
swer is,  "  By  baj)tism."  This  baptism,  Mr. 
M.  admits,  is  Christian  baptism.  This, 
then,  is  an  end  to  the  dispute  on  this  point. 
"When  it  is  correctly  translated,  it  is  the 
past  tense,  as  the  verse  before  has  it.  It 
then,  reads,  "  We  were  buried  with  him  by 
baptism,"  not  in  death  but  into  death.  The 
burial  was  not  in  the  death,  nor  hy  the 
death,  but  "  in  baptism,"  Col.  ii.  12,  and. 
"  hy  baptism,"  Rom.  vi.  4;  and  this  is  now 
admitted  to  be  Christian  baptism.  It  is, 
then,  ill  Christian  bajDtism,  or  hy  Christian 
baptism,  we  are  buried  with  Christ,  and  it 
is  from  this  we  "  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead," 
Col.  ii.  12. 

Mr.  M.  says,  "  I  know  that  it  is  possible 
to  sprinkle  j)eople  in  the  river,"  and  that 
"I  have  seen  it  cloned  He  says,  "I  have 
seen  them  after  being  sprinkled  in  the 
river,  go  np  straightway  out  of  the  wattr." 
Well,  I  am  glad  to  find  him  converted  on 
the  meaning  of"  go  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water."  He  evidently  nses  it  here  in 
the  same  sense  as  I  have  been  using  it. 


ACTION    uV    BAPTlJSM.  487 

Since  he  now  understands  "  go  iqy  out  of  the 
water,"  the  next  thing  to  notice  is  what  he 
saw  done  in  the  river.  He  saw  persons 
"go  doian  into  the  water,"  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament sense,  and  water  sprinkled  upon 
them,  not  in  the  river,  or  in  the  water,  but 
on  them  out  of  the  river,  or  not  on  the 
j)art  tliat  was  in  the  river,  but  the  part 
that  was  out  of  the  river,  and  then  saw 
them  "go  up  out  of  the  river,"  in  the 
Scrij)ture  sense.  But  what  caused  these  to 
go  down  into  the  river  and  up  out  of 
the  river? — the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
words  ^^  down  into''  and  ^' njp  out  of .''  The 
argument  is  now  surrendered  virtually,  and 
the  question  is  settled. 


MR.  MERRILL'S  NINTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  Respected  Hearers  : 

In  discussing  a  subject  such  as  is  now 
before  us,  it  is  exceedingly  important  that 
we  have  due  regard  to  the  interest  involv- 
ed, and  to  the  kind  of  testimony  that  is  to 
determine  the  issue.  We  are  not  contend- 
ing merely  for  an  empty  ceremony,  without 
spiritual  significance  or  practical  bearing. 
'Nov  are  we  contending  for  victory  over 
men  or  parties.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
my  object  is  to  promote  truth,  instruct  the 
inquiring,  and  arrest  the  progress  of  mis- 
cheivous  error.  If  the  jDOsition  of  my 
worthy  opponent  be  correct,  I  have  never 


488  DEBATE    ON    THE 

been  baptized,  have  no  right  to  the  name 
of  Christian,  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  nor  to  any  privilege  in  the  church 
of  Grod.  I  want  to  know  if  the  large  mass 
of  professing  Christians  in  this  country,  are 
nothing  but  intruders  in  the  church,  hypo- 
crites and  deceivers,  while  they  imagine 
themselves  honest,  and  on  their  way  to 
heaven.  If  there  is  no  ba|3tism  but  immer- 
sion, such  is  the  case,  and  more  !  But  I  do 
not  believe  this.  I  do  not  believe  I  am  de- 
ceived. I  do  not  believe  the  large  majority 
of  the  professed  friends  of  Christ,  are  so 
wofully  blinded.  I  do  not  believe  the  most 
learned,  pious,  and  faithfal  men  that  ever 
lived,  who  have  pray  erf  ally  considered  every 
verse  in  the  Bible,  have  been  so  fearfully 
blinded  as  to  live  and  die  without  baptism. 
IN'or  do  I  believe  that  if  the  use  of  water 
in  one  particular  form  were  necessary  to  the 
validity  of  baptism,  the  Lord  would  have 
left  the  subject  in  such  a  posture  as  to  ad- 
mit of  mistake,  by  sincere  and  honest  seek- 
ers after  truth.  But  all  this  Mr.  Franklin 
believes  !  His  creed  unchurches  much  the 
larger  portion  of  Christendom.  With  him, 
I  regret  the  existence  of  strife.  I  would 
that  no  man  could  he  found  so  full  of  con- 
ceit and  dogmatism,  as  to  wish  to  impose 
his  views  upon  his  neighbors.  I  would 
that  all  men  would  learn  to  love  the  Lord 
and  his  people,  and  exercise  that  forbear- 
ance and  charity  that  the  gospel  imposes 
as  a  duty.     But  whence  arises  the  strife  ? 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  489 

"Who  are  the  disturbers  of  Israel  ?  Who 
wage  war  upon  their  neighbors,  in  regard 
to  forms  and  modes?  Do  those  who  be- 
lieve the  mode  not  essential?  Do  they 
who  proclaim  to  the  world  that  baptism  is 
sufficient,  whether  administered  by  pour- 
ing, sprinkliDg  or  immersion  ?  ^o,  sir ; 
they  ask  not  how  the  water  has  been 
applied,  nor  how  much  !  They  ask  only, 
"  Is  thy  heart  right  ?"  Wherever  they  find 
a  lover  of  Jesus,  sincerely  obeying  the  gos- 
pel, and  trying  to  get  to  heaven,  they  re- 
cognize him  as  a  Christian  brother,  ask  him 
to  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Jesus,  and  bid  him  God-speed.  They  make 
no  outward  form — no  mere  mode,  a  test  of 
discipleship.  They  never  enter  upon  the 
despicable  business  of  frightening  the  igno- 
rant or  inexperienced,  by  telling  them 
that  they  must  perish  for  ever  unless  they 
have  the  water  applied  in  the  right  form  ! 
Then,  when  shall  we  have  peace  ?  'Never, 
so  long  as  men  insist  upon  any  one  form  of 
baptism  as  the  exclusive  mode.  Exclu- 
siveness  is  the  parent  of  bigotry  ;  and  big- 
otry will  always  beget  strife  and  evil 
work  ! 

What  a  picture  the  gentleman  drew  of 
the  condition  of  the  churches  that  practice 
sprinkling  or  pouring  !  One  would  think 
that,  from  time  immemorial,  they  have  pre- 
sented a  scene  of  confusion  and  strife,  on 
the  subject  of  baptism  !  that  all  the  intelli- 
gent, conscientious  members,  have  been  in 


490  DEBATE    ON    THE 

rebellion  against  sprinkling,  and  that  the 
preachers,  who  have  no  conscience  in  the 
matter,  are  laboring  night  and  day  to  keep 
them  quiet,  binding  and  forcing  uj)on  them 
a  right  that  is  obnoxious  and  disgusting  ! 
But  does  the  gentleman  expect  that  any 
intelligent  man  will  believe  a  word  of  all 
this!  Does  he  think  we  will  lay  aside 
common  sense,  hoodwink  our  faculties,  and 
stultify  ourselves,  just  for  his  accommoda- 
tion ?  If  so,  let  him  proceed  with  his  cari- 
cature !  His  sympathetic  appeal,  on  the 
ground  that  immersion  is  "safe,"  would  be 
barely  possible  in  a  general  harangue  to 
the  multitude,  where  many  were  averse  to 
investigation  or  incapable  of  it ;  but  in 
sober  debate,  where  argument  is  wanted, 
where  the  question  is  as  to  what  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  and  the  Apostles  practiced,  it  is 
the  very  last  species  of  special  pleading. 
It  dwindles  into  mere  cant !  It  is  a  perfect 
realization  of  the  old  adage,  "  a  drowning 
man  will  catch  at  straws." 

The  gentleman  made  a  desperate  effort 
to  get  the  Jailor  and  prisoners  out  of  the 
Philippian  jail,  before  the  baptism — but 
he  failed,  of  course.  That  is  what  he  is 
unable  to  do.  His  imagination  is  very 
elastic,  and  his  powers  of  influence  very 
strong,  but  all  is  of  no  avail.  The  history 
is  against  him.  When  the  keeper  of  the 
prison  took  his  sword  and  was  about  to 
kill  himself,  how  came  Paul  by  the  inform- 
ation, if  he  did  hot  see  his  motions  ?    Will 


ACTION    OF    "BAPTISM.  491 

it  do  to  infer  that  he  got  it  b}^  revelation  ? 
Or  is  it  not  more  rational  to  say  that 
Paul,  being  himself  in  the  dungeon,  and 
the  keeper  in  a  room  in  the  same  build- 
ing, less  dark,  could  very  naturally  see 
what  was  going  on,  after  the  doors  were 
open  ?  And  is  it  not  true  that  the  very 
language,  he  "thrust  them  into  the  inner 
prison,"  because  of  the  strict  charge  re- 
ceived, implies,  without  any  stretch  of 
inference,  that  there  was  a  more  common 
prison,  which  was  not  the  "  inner  pris- 
on ?"  No  man  can  hesitate  a  moment 
here.  Then,  again,  in  regard  to  the 
phrase  on  which  the  affirmant  relies — he 
"  brought  them  out."  Is  there  in  this  the 
least  particle  of  evidence  that  he  took  them 
out  of  any  thing  except  the  inner  j)rison  ? 
Not  the  least  in  the  world  !  Then  while 
they  were  "  out,"  to  the  full  extent  of  their 
being  "out"  that  night,  it  is  said  "they 
spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
to  all  that  were  in  his  housed  Did  they  all 
go  out  of  the  building — literally  out  of 
doors  in  the  night,  to  hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord?  The  gentleman  himself  can  hardly 
infer  this  !  The  whole  scope  of  the  narra- 
tive carries  on  its  face  the  idea  that  the 
keeper  was  sleeping  in  a  part  of  the  build- 
ing in  which  the  prison  was,  and  that  when 
he  brought  Paul  and  Silas  out  of  the  "  in- 
ner prison,"  they  were  yet  in  the  building, 
where  the  preaching  was  done,  the  pris- 
oners' stripes  washed  and  the  keeper  and 


492  DEBATE    ON    THE 

his  household  baptized;  after  which  they 
went  into  the  apartment  occupied  by  the 
keeper  as  a  residence.  All  this  is  perfectly 
natural.  It  requires  no  forced  inference. 
JSiO  one  Would  ever  have  thought  of  any 
thing  else,  but  for  the  accommodation  of 
immersionism.  Then  there  are  real  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  the  j)resumption  of 
my  opponent.  Had  the  keeper  been  seen 
out  of  the  building  with  those  prisoners, 
his  life  would  have  been  forfeited.  It  was 
to  avoid  public  execution  that  he  was  about 
to  take  his  own  life,  when  he  thought  the 
prisoners  were  gone.  Would  they,  then, 
under  those  circumstances,  have  left  the 
prison  that  night,  to  search  for  water  to 
immerse  in  ?  There  was  a  river  near  the 
city,  but  it  is  absolutely  preposterous  to 
suppose  the  Jailor,  with  his  prisoners  and 
household,  visited  it  that  night.  Too 
"  great  a  stretch  of  imagination  "'  is  requir- 
ed to  believe  this.  And  the  next  day  the 
prisoners  threw  themselves  upon  their  dig- 
nity and  rights,  actually  refusing  to  leave 
the  prison  privately.  I  tell  you,  sirs,  the 
fancy,  the  fiction,  the  inference,  the  stretch 
of  imagination,  and  the  absurdity,  too,  are 
all  on  the  other  side.  My  friend  has  taxed 
his  ingenuity  to  force  this  passage  out  of  his 
way  ;  but  there  it  stands  ! 

But  he  asks,  "  Where  has  a  jailor  re- 
sided, with  his  fiimily,  in  a  prison?"  If  he 
had  just  added  the  word  "building,"  his 
question   would   have  represented   what  I 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  493 

said;  aud  I  would  answer — In  almost  every 
county  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  wherever 
else  there  are  prisons  !  The  nearest  instance 
I  can  think  of  just  now,  is  up  here  on 
Sixth  street,  between  Court  and  Washing- 
ton. And  with  all  the  gentleman's  hostili- 
ty to  inference,  he  infers  that  the  keeper 
took  the  prisoners  into  his  house,  where 
they  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  that 
they  all  went  out  of  the  house  in  order  to 
baptism,  and  then  that  he  brought  them  in 
again,  after  baptism  !  This  is  not  only  in- 
ference, but  it  is  contrary  to  the  plain  nar- 
rative. But  the  gentleman  is  forced  to 
desperate  means  to  save  a  desperate  cause ! 
The  truth  is,  this  narrative,  without  any 
forcing  or  torturing,  gives  a  plain  exam- 
ple of  baptism,  in  the  night,  in  the  prison 
building,  under  such  circumstances  as  to 
actually  preclude  the  idea  of  immersion. 
It  binds  the  exclusive  theory  of  my  friend 
in  chains  of  adamant,  and  consigns  it  to 
the  stocks  and  dungeon  of  an  inner  prison! 
With  all  his  noisy  declamation,  he  can  not 
create  an  earthquake  sufficient  to  jar  a 
door  or  break  a  link  !  Possibly  we  may 
hear  from  him  again  on  this  point,  but  I 
think  he  is  about  through  with  it.  The 
more  comfort  he  seeks  in  this  case,  the  dryer 
and  colder  it  becomes! 

The  gentleman  thinks  that  because  the 
Apostles  preached  in  Solomon's  porch — 
the  most  public  place  about  the  temple — 
that  therefore  they  could   have  uninterrup- 


494  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ted  access  to  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  for  a 
sufficient  length  of  time,  on  the  great  feast 
day,  too,  (Pentecost,)  to  accomplish  the  im- 
mersion, in  its  polluted  waters,  of  three 
thousand  converts  lo  the  faith  so  inveter- 
ately  hated  by  the  whole  priesthood  !  But 
he  has  a  book  lying  before  him  that  sets 
the  matter  right !  Well,  I  suppose,  then, 
the  matter  is  settled! — but,  by  the  way, 
might  it  not  be  well  for  the  gentleman  to 
favor  us  with  the  name  of  that  wonderful 
book  ?  And  may  it  not  be  that  some  are 
so  incredulous  as  to  desire  to  hear  a  pas- 
sage or  two  read  from  it?  Does  Mr.  F.  be- 
lieve the  people  were  baj^tized  in  the  Moul- 
ten  Sea?  He  does  not.  Does  he  believe 
the  brook  Kidron  afforded  the  accommoda- 
tion? He  knows  better!  Does  he  think 
it  was  in  either  the  Pool  G-ihon  or  Siloam  ? 
^ot  a  word  of  it !  Then  what  progress 
has  he  made  in  removing  the  difficulty,  by 
calling  over  the  names  of  these  pools,  and 
this  brook?  I^ot  the  least  in  the  world, 
and  he  can  not.  He  may  affect  to  make 
light  of  it,  but,  with  his  great  book  lying 
before  him,  his  lively  imagination,  and  his 
powers  of  ridicule  and  sarcasm,  he  is  still 
unable  to  remove  the  mountain. 

The  gentleman  gave  you  a  summary  of 
my  arguments,  which  he  designed  for  a 
caricature — but  I  doubt  if  he  can  so  much 
as  satisfactorily  to  himself,  answer  his  own 
statement  of  them  ;  for  after  he  did  the 
summing  up,  finding  them  looking  rather 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  495 

formidable,  even  in  the  dress  he  put  upon 
them,  lie  very  suddenly  turned  away  from 
them  to  attend  to  another  point  or  two ! 
"Well,  I  have  j^l^^ty  of  time  to  follow  him 
in  his  own  course.  But  you  will  not,  of 
course,  take  his  statements  as  my  positions, 
after  the  numerous  exposures  I  have  made 
of  his  incorrect  statements. 

I  have  told  you  frequently  that  both 
hapto  and  hajytizo  occur  often  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, where  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism  is  not;  but  what  the  affirmant  de- 
sires to  make  out  of  this  fact,  is  a  profound 
mystery.  When  I  appeal  to  the  use  of 
these  terms,  where  the  ordinance  is  not,  he 
becomes  horrified  at  the  idea  of  going 
amongst  the  types  for  light  in  reference  to 
a  Christian  institution  !  The  use  of  the 
word  where  the  ordinance  is  not,  proves  to 
a  demonstration  that  it  does  not  always 
mean  immerse;  and  when  I  present  these 
examples  in  proof  of  the  generic  character 
of  the  word,  he  then  says  he  don't  care 
how  many  meanings  it  has,  when  used 
with  reference  to  other  things,  it  can  only 
have  one  meaning  when  used  with  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinance.  And  now  he  says 
there  must  bo  "  something  more  "  than  bap- 
tism before  you  have  the  ordinance!  Will 
he  tell  us  what  else  besides  baptism  is  nec- 
essary to  constitute  the  ordinance?  And 
will  he  also  tell  us  the  name  of  the  ordi- 
nance which  consists  of  baptism  and  some- 
thing else  added  to  it?    And  will  he  tell 

33 


496  DEBATE    ON    THE 

US  where  he  gets  his  authority  for  adding 
"something  more  "  to  baptism,  in  order  to 
make  up  the  ordinance?  The  trutii  is,  if 
the  gentleman's  doctrine  be  true,  there  is 
no  ordinance!  A  man  is  baptized  when  he 
falls  into  a  river,  or  when  he  goes  in  for 
the  purpose  of  bathing,  just  as  well  and 
perfectly  as  he  can  be.  The  abstract  idea 
of  immersion  is  all  there  is  in  it!  The  per- 
tinacity with  which  the  gentleman  begs 
the  question,  is  truly  astonishing.  He  not 
only  asserts  that  baptism  and  immersion 
are  precisely  the  same,  but  he  goes  on  to 
argue  and  draw  inferences  from  the  asser- 
tion, as  though  it  were  an  established  fact ! 
A  word  or  two  in  regard  to  the  authority 
of  great  names.  The  gentleman  thinks  I 
set  aside  the  sayings  of  Clarke,  Wesley, 
Calvin  and  Luther,  with  too  little  considera- 
tion. But  do  these  learned,  good,  and  wise 
men  sustain  the  proposition  Mr.  F.  afiirms? 
jN'ot  by  any  means.  They  admit  that  im- 
mersion was  practiced  anciently,  but  not 
exclusively.  They  believed,  taught,  and 
practiced  bajDtism  by  different  modes.  They 
had  no  idea  that  the  mode  was  necessarily 
uniform.  But  they  knew  as  much  about 
Greek,  and  ancient  customs,  too,  as  does 
Mr.  Franklin.  Were  they  honest?  If  so, 
their  lives  proclaim  the  sincerity  of  their 
faith  in  baptism  without  immersion.  But 
if  they  were  not  honest,  why  does  Mr. 
Franklin  quote  them  ?  1  will  read  you  a 
passage  from  Mr.  WeBley — not  as  authority, 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  497 

but  to  vindicate  him  from  misrepresenta- 
tion— to  show  you  that  he  does  not  sustain 
the  position  of  Mr.  F.  I  I'ead  his  remarks 
on  Matt.  iii.  5-6 :  "  Such  prodigious  numbers 
could  hardly  be  baptized  by  immcrging 
their  whole  bodies  under  Avater ;  nor  can 
we  think  they  were  j^rovided  with  ciaange 
of  raiment  for  it,  which  was  scarcely  prac- 
ticable for  such  vast  multitudes.  And  yet 
they  could  not  be  immerged  naked  with 
modesty,  nor  in  their  wearing  apparel  with 
safety.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  they  stood 
in  ranks  on  the  edge  of  the  river,  and  that 
John,  passing  along  before  them,  cast  water 
on  their  heads  or  faces,  by  which  means  he 
might  baptize  many  thousands  in  a  day. 
And  this  way  most  naturally  signified 
Christ's  baptizing  them  lolth  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  loithjire,  which  John  spoke  of,  as  pre- 
figured by  his  baptizing  Avith  water,  and 
which  was  eminently  fulfilled,  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  sat  upon  the  disciples  in  the 
appearance  of  tongues,  or  flames  of  fire." 
This  was  the  honest  opinion  of  Mr.  Wesley. 
And  ho  had  no  prejudice  in  his  mind  against 
immersion.  Will  Mr.  Franklin  take  this 
testimony  of  Mr.  AYesley  ?  I  judge  not; 
nor  can  he  overthrow  it ! 

The  power  of  habit  is  next  thing  to 
omnipotent.  My  friend  has  so  long  been 
accustomed  to  a  misconception  of  the  posi- 
tions of  his  antagonist,  that  it  seems  impos- 
sible for  him  to  avoid  it.  lie  says  I  "  dis- 
pensed   with    Dr.  Lillie   and  Mr.    Carson,'^ 


498  DEBATE    ON   THE 

with  the  snap  of  my  finger !  As  for  Br. 
Lillie,  I  care  no  more  for  his  authority  than 
I  do  for  the  naked  assertion  of  Mr.  Frank- 
lin— but  I  did  not  dispense  with  Carson  at 
all.  I  took  Mr.  Carson  as  the  very  best 
immersionist  authority  that  can  be  pro- 
duced, and  put  his  learning  and  authority 
over  against  the  bare  assertion  of  Mr. 
Franklin.  The  o;entleman  on  the  affirma- 
tive  is  the  man  who  wants  to  "dispense" 
with  his  old  friend  and  favorite  critic,  Mr. 
Carson!  The  personality  to  which  the 
gentleman  "  descended,"  by  way  of  playing 
on  the  word  "  /iiVe,"  is  j)erfectly  harmless, 
coming  from  him  in  connection  with  the 
barefaced  misrepresentation  which  I  have 
just  now  i^ointed  out.  But  he  intends  to 
"reaffirm"  the  position  he  "walked  out 
upon,"  when  he  comes  to  the  "  recapitula- 
tion !"  Would  it  not  be  well  for  him  to 
IDvovG  it  by  good  logic,  Scripture,  or  some 
other  cosiipetent  authority,  before  he  comes 
to  the  recapitulation  ?  And  he  don't  in- 
tend to  be  led  by  me  while  lie  is  on  the 
affirmative !  Well,  I  did  not  desire  to 
"  lead  "  him,  but  in  four  speeches  he  ad- 
vanced his  "  arguments,"  and  then  found 
himself  so  far  behind  that  he  whipped 
round  upon  the  negative,  and  has  been 
trying  ever  since  to  get  up — but  without 
effect!  Now, finding  the  prospect  of  over- 
taking me  growing  dim,  he  comforts  him- 
self with  the  reflection  that  he  can  "re- 
affirm "  his  shattered  "  positions  "  when  he 
comes  to  recapitulate  !     Well,  well! ! 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  499 

The  gentleman,  it  seems,  is  not  yet  will- 
ing to  see  his  last  hope  wrested  from  him, 
without  one  more  faint  effort  to  resist  the 
aggressor.  He  returns  to  the  argument  on 
"  burying  by  baptism,"  as  though  he  had 
caught  an  idea  that  would  really  help  him. 
It  is  the  tense  of  the  verb  suncthapto,  which 
he  thinks  is  expressive  of  past  time.  Well, 
there  are  several  tenses  in  the  Greek  that 
relate  to  past  time ;  and  did  the  gentleman 
name  the  verb  or  the  tense  ?  'No  ;  he  did 
no  such  thing  as  that ;  and  I  begin  to  sus- 
pect that,  notwithstanding  the  large  pre- 
tensions he  made  as  to  his  knowledge  of 
the  language,  when  he  was  preaching  here, 
and  had  no  opponent,  he  does  not  know 
enough  about  the  language  to  tell  the  tense 
of  this  verb,  or  to  explain  its  force  !  He  is 
on  the  affirmative,  and  very  much  opposed 
to  being  led  ;  then,  I  will  just  ask  him  to 
demonstrate  his  comj)etency  to  expound 
G-reek,  and  criticise  the  translations,  by 
telling  us  all  about  this  verb.  And  lest  he 
should  think  me  delinquent,  I  will  inform 
him  that  the  tense  of  the  verb  in  the  original^ 
justifies  the  translation  just  as  it  is;  and  if  he 
wishes  to  change  the  translation,  let  him 
come  forth  and  show  his  reasons.  It  ex- 
presses an  action  done  in  past  time,  and 
which,  in  this  case,  has  not  been  undone  ; 
and,  consequently,  one  that  remains  done. 
"VYe  were  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ, 
at  which  time  our  life  was  hid  with  Christ 
in  God — we  are^  therefore,  buried  with  him. 


500  DEBATE   ON   THE 

Sin  is  personified  under  the  name  of  the 
"  old  man."  This  "  old  man  "  is  crucified, 
dead  and  buried.  The  burial  lasts  as  long 
as  the  death.  It  is  a  plain  question  of  fact : 
Are  we  "  buried,"  in  this  figurative  sense, 
as  long  as  we  remain  "  dead  to  sin,"  and  as 
long  as  our  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God?" 
If  so,  my  position  is  correct,  and  that  of 
Mr.  F.  is  wrong  ;  but  if  not,  our  burial  into 
the  death  of  Christ  is  but  momentary ;  and 
by  ceasing  to  be  buried  with  him,  we  cease 
to  he  in  Mm,  or  in  his  death;  and,  conse- 
quently, we  lose  all  interest  in  him  by  be- 
ing unbaptized  !  Who  will  believe  this  ? 
JSTone  that  think  for  themselves  !  And  yet 
if  the  position  that  the  baptism  is  the  burial, 
and  the  burial  the  baptism,  be  true,  there 
is  no  escape  from  these  consequences.  And 
if  the  burial  is  physical,  the  death  is  physi- 
cal, and  the  result  is  drowning!  Mr.  F. 
talked  as  though  he  had  forced  me  to  admit 
that  Paul  was  speaking  of  Christian  bap- 
tism !  But  this  was  my  ground  from  the 
beginning.  I  never  dreamed  of  calling  it 
any  other  baptism.  And  I  have  looked  at 
the  subject  deliberately,  again  and  again ; 
and  the  more  I  look  at  it,  the  less  appear- 
ance of  immersion  I  see  about  it.  Baptism 
is  the  appointed,  standing  symbol  of  the 
office  and  work  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit 
inducts  us  into  the  Savior.  *'  For  by  one 
Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body  ;" 
I.  Cor.  xii.  13.  The  work  which  the  Spirit 
actually  performs,  is  represented  by  Chris- 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  501 

tian  baptism  ;  and,  by  oae  of  the  most  com- 
mon and  easy  figures  in  all  the  range  of 
language,  that  which  is  the  result  of  the  in- 
visible agency  is  attributed  to  the  visible 
emblem  which  sets  forth  that  agency  to 
the  outward  senses.  This  is  the  truth  in 
regard  to  this  ^^ixssage  of  Scripture,  and  the 
gentleman's  learning  can  not  overthrow  it, 
nor  can  his  quibbling  escape  it. 

The  gentleman  closed  by  proclaiming 
that  the  argument  was  virtually  surrender- 
ed, and  the  question  settled  !  ISTot  so  fast, 
my  dear  sir  !  His  play  upon  going  down 
into  the  river,  and  coming  up  out  of  it,  is 
not  quite  so  potent.  If  the  jingle  of  these 
words,  together  with  modern  customs,  does 
induce  some  honest  and  very  scrupulous 
persons  to  go  down  into  the  water  to  be 
baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  this 
onl}^  proves  the  absurdity  of  his  assertions 
that  it  is  physically  impossible  to  sprinkle 
people  in  the  river.  It  proves  nothing,  in 
point  of  fact,  as  to  the  scriptural  mode  of 
baptism. 

I  have  now  followed  the  gentleman  in 
his  "  winding  way,"  and  answered  every 
thing  worth  answering,  and  some  that  was 
not.  I  have  corrected  numerous  errors 
into  which  he  has  fallen,  and  left  others  for 
your  good  sense  and  discrimination  to  cor- 
rect. JSTow,  what  has  he  accomplished  ? 
"What  does  he  rely  upon  ?  Evidently  noth- 
ing but  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo, 
which,  ho  insists,  is  precisely  the  same  as 


502  DEBATE    ON   THE 

immerse  ?  Has  he  proved  this  ?  By  what 
authority  ?  Bible  usage  ?  N'o !  Classic 
usage  ?  Xo  !  Lexicons  ?  ^o !  All  these 
give  other  Qneanings  to  the  word.  But  he 
says  there  is  neither  water,  fire,  Spirit  nor 
ordinance  in  the  word  !  I  know  this  as 
well  as  he  does,  and  never  thought  of  doubt- 
ing it ;  but  then  it  is  applied  or  used  with 
reference  to  all  these,  under  such  circum- 
stances as  to  preclude  immersion. 

Has  he  so  much. as  taken  up  the  question 
on  which  this  whole  controversy  hinges — 
as  to  whether  the  word  is  generic  or  univo- 
calf  He  has  not;  but  he  told  you  he 
avoided  these  words  because  he  was  de- 
termined to  be  understood !  How  many 
examples  has  he  given  of  apostolic  practice  ? 
One — only  one  !  And  has  he  made  out  a 
clear  and  satisfactory  case  of  immersion? 
Kot  by  a  great  deal.  Has  he  broken  the 
argument  from  the  action  of  the  Spirit  ? 
Has  he  got  the  Israelites  all  immersed  in 
the  Eed  Sea,  when  they  passed  over  "  dry- 
shod?"  Has  he  got  Nebuchadnezzar  im- 
mersed in  the  dew  when  he  lay  out  in  the 
grass?  Has  he  satisfied  you  that  the  Jews 
did  actually  immerse  tliemselves  on  return- 
ing from  market  ?  Has  he  proved  that 
they  did  literally  immerse  their  heds  ?  Has 
he  convinced  any  one  that  cdl  the  legal 
washings  of  the  Jews,  called  "divers  bap- 
tisms," were  immersions  ?  Then  was  he 
not  too  fast  in  proclaiming  the  question 
settled  ? 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  503 

MR.  FRANKLIN'S  TENTH  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

We  have  met  this  evening  to  close  the 
discussion  on  this  question,  and  I  hope  we 
shall  have  a  pleasant  interview.  There 
was  some  little  excitement  in  some  parts  of 
the  assembly  this  afternoon,  but  this  is 
nothing  more  than  is  to  be  expected  on  oc- 
casions like  this.  There  are  persons  here 
who  have  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon 
for  baptism — some  of  them  with,  and  oth- 
ers without,  their  own  consent,  or  before 
they  knew  any  thing.  These  have  been 
deiDending  upon  their  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing for  baptism,  suj^posed  it  clearly  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  honestly  thought, 
no  doubt,  that  Mr.  M.,  with  his  clear  head, 
cool  and  deliberate  manner  and  respectable 
learning,  would  bring  some  satisfactory 
commands  or  examples  from  the  Scrip- 
tures for  S23rinkling  or  pouring.  They 
have  listened  to  him  faithfully  to  the  close 
of  the  second  day — have  heard  him  five 
hours  on  the  subject,  and  have  not  heard 
from  him  the  first  evidence  containing  the 
remotest  hint  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  for 
baptism !  This  is  truly  discouraging  for 
them!  They  then  hear  their  own  Disci- 
pline endorse  immersion.  They  then  hear 
him  admit  that  Wesley,  Clarke,  Calvin  and 
Luther  admit  the  ancient  manner  of  im- 
mersion. They  then  think  of  seeing  Mr. 
M.  immerse,  calling  it  baptism^  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  thus  endorsing  our  practice ! 


504  DEBATE    ON    THE 

In  the  midst  of  these  troubles,  if  they  have 
any  doubts  about  their  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing for  baptism,  he  comforts  them  by  call- 
ing them  "  ignorant  and  inexperienced." 
Is  this  the  class  that  become  dissatisfied 
with  sprinkling  and  pouring? — that  be- 
come frightened  ?  Is  their  conscience  to 
be  thus  silenced  by  the  charge  o^  ignorance^ 
being  inexperienced  and  frightened?  ISTo 
wonder  tliat  there  should  be  restlessness 
among  Mr.  M.'s  friends,  when  in  a  trouble 
of  this  sort  and  treated  tlius  cavalierly  by 
him  who  was  expected  to  afford  them  some 
relief! 

But  this  is  not  the  worst.  The  worthy 
gentleman  calls  forth  his  superior  powers 
of  imagination,  and  combines  them  with 
his  fine  descriptive  powers,  and  launches 
forth  as  follows :  "  If  the  position  of  my 
worthy  opponent  be  correct,  I  have  never 
been  baptized."  Indeed  !  Then  certainly 
the  position  must  be  an  erroneous  one  ! 
We  must  occupy  a  position  that  is  not  sub- 
versive of  his  baptism,  for  it  must  he  that 
he  has  been  baptized!  But  is  it  not  possi- 
ble that  he,  without  being  a  hypocrite  at 
all,  or  dishonest,  has,  thus  far,  been  under 
a  mistake?  It  is  certainly  j)ossible,  as  it 
was  in  the  case  of  Carson,  and  with  many 
other  great  and  good  men.  They  were  not 
only  mistaken,  but  wise  enough  to  find 
their  mistake  and  correct  it.  But  while 
the  gentleman  was  expatiating  upon  this 
point,  with  his  imagination  heated  up,  and 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  505 

excited  to  the  utmost  extent,  he  says  :  "I 
want  to  know  if  the  large  mass  of  profess- 
ing Christians,  in  this  country,  are  nothing 
but  intruders   in    the    church,  hypocrites 
and   deceivers,  while  they  imagine  them- 
selves honest  and  on  their  way  to  heaven." 
Was  the  gentleman  so  near  out   of  his 
right  mind,  when  he  uttered  this,  as   not 
to  know  that  he  was  talking   perfectly  at 
random.     Who  ever  said  any  thing  al30ut 
all  these  being  "  intruders  in  the  church, 
hypocrites  and  deceivers  ?"     They  are  not 
"intruders,  hypocrites  and  deceivers,"  but 
honest  souls,  in  thousands  of  instances,  de- 
siring to   do   the  will  of  God,  and  would 
have  done  it,  if  they  had  not  been  persuad- 
ed, contrary  to  their   own  convictions   of 
conscience,  and  misled  by  an  honest,  but 
mistaken,   preacher.     With    what   dignity 
Pope  Pious  IX.  could  use  the  argument  of 
my   opponent   against  myself.     He  could 
exclaim,  "If  the    ^^osition  of  the  worthy 
gentleman  be  correct,  /  have  never  been 
baptized."      He   might  also    proceed,    "  I 
want  to  know  if  the  large  mass  of  profess- 
ing Christians  in  this  country  are  nothing 
but   intruders   in   the    church,    hypocrites 
and    deceivers!"      But    if   the    gentleman 
must    have  baptism   in   such  a   shape    as 
to  enclose  a  large  number,  he  had  better 
adopt  the   Universalian    charity  and   em- 
brace  all,  whether  baptized  at  all,  in  the 
church  or  out  of  it,  regenerated  or  unre- 
generated.     He   can  then  apply  his  argu- 
ment in  its  full  force. 


506  DEBATE    ON   THE 

The  worthy  gentleman  complains  of  my 
exhortations  and  loud  speaking,  and  says 
that  he  can  not  reply  to  an  exhortation. 
There  are  very  good  reasons  why  he  does 
not  exhort  nor  speak  loud.  He  speaks  as 
loud  as  he  can  speak,  and  nothing  but 
physical  inability  j^revents  him  from  speak- 
ing louder.  He  can  not  speak  any  louder. 
He  can  not  exhort,  because  he  is  not  hap- 
py. He  is  in  too  much  misery  to  exhort. 
Men  in  trouble  can  not  exhort.  I  am  hap- 
py, and  can  not  refrain  from  letting  a 
word  of  exhortation  fall  now  and  then. 
He  speaks  of  having  myself,  or  my  argu- 
ments, in  prison;  but  I  am  truly  happy  in 
this  prison,  and,  if  I  could  sing  like  Paul 
and  Silas,  I  would  give  an  invitation. 
AYho  knows  but  the  worthy  gentleman, 
like  the  Jailor,  might  cry  out,  "What  must 
I  do  to  be  saved?"  If  he  could  learn  what 
to  do  to  save  him  from  defeat,-  he  unques- 
tionably would  cry  out,  "  What  must  I  do 
to  be  saved?"  But  there  is  no  person  in 
this  wide  world  that  can  tell  him  what  to 
do  in  his  desperate  case.  What  has  he 
done  for  his  cause?  As  before  stated,  he 
admits  immersion  to  be  valid  baptism. 
His  own  creed  and  standard  authorities, 
such  as  Clarke  and  Wesley,  endorse  im- 
mersion as  valid  baptism.  He  has  en- 
dorsed it  himself,  by  administering  it,  and 
calling  it  baptism,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
That  immersion  is  valid  baptism,  we  are 
both  agreed.     So  far,  we  are  one.     It  is  an 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  507 

article  in  both  bis  and  my  own  faitb  and 
practice.  If  he  is  orthodox  in  this  point 
of  argument,  I  am.  So  far,  I  am  in  the 
affirmative  ;  but  no  more  than  he  is.  So 
far,  the  argument,  as  flar  as  our  debate  is 
concerned,  is  settled,  and  I  am  safe. 

But  tbe  word  o??/?/ affixed  to  the  word  im- 
mersion, involves  another  question.  That 
is  the  simple  question.  Is  any  thing  but 
immersion  baptism?  or,  to  state  the  ques- 
tion fuller,  "Do  the  Scriptures  teach,  and 
did  the  Apostles  practice,  any  thing  but 
immersion  for  baptism?"  Mr.  M.  affirms, 
with  me,  that  immersion  is  baptism;  and, 
in  opposition  to  me,  that  something  else  is 
baptism.  The  trouble,  with  him,  has  been 
to  find  where  the  Scriptures  teach,  or  the 
Apostles  practiced,  that  something  else.  He 
said,  before  the  debate  commenced,  that 
"it  is  not  sprinkling  nor  pouring,"  as  such. 
This  he  has  found  true  to  the  letter  to  this 
hour.  Not  one  word  from  Scripture  has 
he  found  of  any  sprinkling  or  pouring  for 
baptism,  nor  one  intimation  of  the  Apos- 
tles ever  practicing  either.  In  his  search, 
he  has  found  eJ^keo  translated  poz/r  02ct  and 
shed  forth;  and  he  has  found  where  it  is 
said,  "it  sat  upon  each  of  them,"  from 
which  he  infers  not  only  pom-wg,  but  that 
the  baptism  of  fire  was  on  the  head,  nearly 
the  same  place  where  he  baptizes  on  the  head, 
but  fails  to  find  any  mode  of  baptism  !  He 
determines,  then,  to  have  satisfaction  in 
some  way,  and  commences  making  objec- 


508  DEBATE    ON   THE 

tions  to  immersion,  which  is  settled,  and  in 
the  practice  of  which  we  both  agree.  He 
puts  his  imagination  to  the  torture  and 
imagines  a  host  of  difficulties  in  the 
Avay  of  immersion.  He  finds  teeming  mil- 
lions of  the  Esquimaux,  in  the  Arctic  re- 
gions, among  interminable  ice,  where  water 
to  immerse  could  not  be  had.  But  he  soon 
reads,  in  the  countenances  of  the  people, 
that  they  feel  that  all  that  is  nothing  but  a 
miserable  subterfuge ;  for  no  human  beings 
can  live  where  it  is  so  cold  that  water  to 
immerse  can  not  be  had.  The  next  thing 
we  see  of  him,  he  is  dej)arting  for  the 
sandy  desert,  where  he  imagines  numerous 
hosts  of  people  living  where  they  hardly 
ever  saw  water  !  But  before  this  is  fairly 
from  his  lips,  reason  thunders  upon  his 
conscience,  declaring,  what  every  man  here 
knows,  that  no  people  ever  did,  or  ever  can, 
live  where  there  is  not  water  to  immerse. 
He  can  not  help  knowing  and  feeling  that 
every  person  here  knows  that,  with  a  little 
preparation,  water  in  abundance  is  obtained 
from  very  small  springs  or  even  from  wells, 
to  immerse.  He  feels  conscious  that  all 
this  is  but  j)ettifoging,  and  that  this  intelli- 
gent audience  will  so  regard  it. 

What  is  to  be  done  in  this  dilemma  ?  He 
resorts  to  an  effort  to  prove  that  certain 
persons  were  baptized  in  houses,  but  fails. 
I  believe  he  has  given  up  all  the  cases  of 
this  sort  as  hopeless,  except  the  Philipj^ian 
Jailor.     He  made  a  tremendous  effort,  in 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  509 

his  former  speech,  to  save  this  case.  He 
has  found  a  most  convinciug  argument. 
The  jailor's  residence,  in  the  goodly  city 
of  Portsmouth,  is  a  part  of  the  prison 
building !  But  he  forgot  to  tell  us,  not 
knowing  how  little  some  of  us  knew  about 
such  matters,  about  the  door  from  the 
aj)artment  in  the  prison  where  the  jailor 
and  family  reside,  into  the  other  apart- 
ment, where  the  prisoners  are.  AVe  should 
have  been  pleased,  if  he  had  afforded  us  a 
little  light  about  the  door  through  the  par- 
tition between  the  two  apartments  in  the 
jDrison — the  one  where  the  Jailor's  family 
live,  and  the  other  where  the  prisoners  are. 
He  felt  the  need  of  plastering  this  case 
anew,  made  an  effort,  but  all  without  effect. 
The  jailor  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang 
in  and  "  brought  them  out."  Out  of  what  ? 
Out  of  prison,  certainly.  They  spoke  the 
word  to  him  and  to  "  all  that  were  in  his 
housed  So  far,  the  Bible  brings  them  out 
of  prison  and  into  the  Jailor's  hotcse,  where 
his  family  were.  He  took  them  the  same 
hour  of  the  night  and  washed  their  stripes 
and  was  baptized.  Where  were  they  now  ? 
Out  of  his  house,  unquestionably ;  for 
he  brought  them  into  his  house.  What  evi- 
dence has  he  that  they  were  in  the  prison, 
w4ien  out  of  his  house?  ISTot  one  syllable, 
but  his  assertion.  He  asserts  that  they  were 
in  the  house  when  baptized,  and  then  as- 
sumes that  there  was  not  water  there  to  im- 
merse; from  which  he  infers  that  they  must 


510  DEBATE    ON   THE 

have  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon.  He 
fails  to  show,  1st,  That  any  body  was  bap- 
tized in  the  house,  so  far  as  Bible  informa- 
tion is  concerned ;  2nd,  That  they  could 
not  have  been  immersed  in  the  house  ;  for 
I  have  immersed  in  houses  many  times 
without  difficulty.  There  is  a  pool  in  the 
House  of  Eefnge  near  Cincinnati,  in  which 
the  inhabitants  of  a  county  might  be  im- 
mersed in  a  short  time.  This  he  finds  to 
be  nothing  but  a  miserable  weak  and  fu- 
tile objection,  proving  nothing,  and  one, 
too,  in  which  his  friends  have  no  confidence. 

Finding  himself  failing,  and  the  people 
losing  all  confidence  in  his  arguments,  he 
rallies  to  the  old,  weak  and  oft-exploded 
objection,  that  the  twelve  Apostles  could 
not  have  immersed  the  three  thousand  in 
the  time  remaining  after  preaching  at  nine 
o'clock  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  but  a 
second  thought,  and  a  brief  calculation, 
convince  all  around  him  that  the  Apostles 
could  have  immersed  the  three  thousand 
with  the  utmost  ease  in  the  given  time  ; 
and  consequently  the  reference  to  this  case 
only  shows  what  a  little  thing  a  man  will 
cling  to  when  in  a  sinking  cause. 

I  am  a  little  surprised  at  the  persistence 
of  Mr.  M.,  in  his  attempt  to  found  an  ob- 
jection to  my  argument,  on  the  expression, 
"  Are  buried  with  him  by  baptism."  He  ar- 
gues from  the  tense,  and  from  nothing  else, 
that  Paul  and  the  church  at  Eome  loere  still 
in  this  burial,  and  therefore  the  burial  could 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  511 

not  be  ill  baptism.  I  told  3^011  if  he  would 
look  in  his  Greek  Testament,  he  would  find 
it  in  the  past  tense,  the  same  as  the  verso 
preceding  it.  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell  renders 
it,  with  the  verse  preceding  it,  as  follows  : 
"  Do  you  not  know  that  as  many  of  us  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  have 
been  baptized  into  his  death  ?  AYehave  been 
buried,  then,  together  with  him,  by  bap- 
tism into  death."  I  am  not  making  any 
statement  upon  my  own  authority  merely, 
but  upon  good  and  reliable  authority.  Did 
he  deny  that  it  is  in  the  past  tense,  and  not 
the  present,  in  the  original,  as  in  the  verse 
preceding  it  ?  He  did  not;  but,  to  divert 
attention,  began  to  tell  of  ray  making  pre- 
tentions to  a  knowledge  of  Greek,  when  he 
heard  me  preach,  which,  by  the  way,  is 
without  a  shadow  of  foundation,  unless  a 
reference  to  some  Greek  word  be  consider- 
ed a  justification  for  what  he  said.  I  make 
no  pretentions  about  how  much  I  know,  or 
how  little,  only  that  what  I  say  is  true. 
The  burial  is  in  the  past  tense  in  the  orig- 
inal— not  "  are  buried  with  him,"  bat  2vere, 
or  "  have  been,  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism," and  consequently  do  not  remain  in 
the  burial,  but  "  are  risen  with  him."  The 
question  is  not  how  much  I  know  about 
Greek,  but  is  the  burial,  verse  4th,  in  the 
past  tense,  in  the  original,  the  same  as 
verse  3rd?  I  say  it  is.  Mr.  M.  has  not  de- 
nied it.  His  argument  is  taken  out  of  his 
hands.     The  Apostle  says,  "  We  have  been 

34 


512  DEBATE   ON   THE 

buried,  then,  together  with  him,  by  baptism 
into  death,"  or,  as  we  shall  have  it  when 
haftisma  is  translated,  "  AVe  have  been 
buried,  then,  together  with  him,  by  im- 
mersion into  death."  This,  then,  is  water 
baptism,  as  Mr.  M.  admits ;  and  they  had 
been  buried  by  this  baptism,  and  had  risen. 
See  Col.  ii.  12. 

The  worth}^  gentleman  has  had  some 
visionary  dreams  about  the  Israelites  being 
baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  If  I 
understood  him,  he  had  rain  sprinlding  vpon 
them  I  But  the  history  of  the  case  does 
not  say  that  rain  was  baptized  upon  them, 
nor  that  they  were  baptized  in  rain;  but 
they  went  through  dry  shod.  "  They  were 
all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea."  Other  parts  of  the  history  show 
that  the  cloud  was  over  them  and  the  sea 
around  them,  so  that  by  the  cloud  and  the 
sea,  they  were  overwhelmed. 

We  are  now  bringing  our  argument  to  a 
close,  and  it  is  proper  that  it  should  be 
placed  in  a  tangible  form.  I  affirm  that 
immersion  is  the  only  baptism  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  and  practiced  by  the  Apos- 
tles. That  immersion  is  baptism,  we  have 
both  agreed,  in  both  word  and  practice. 
Thus  far  the  argument  is  settled  and  agreed 
to  by  us  both.  The  remainder  of  the  ques- 
tion is  simply  this :  Was  any  thing  else  but 
immersion  practiced  by  divine  authority? 
The  gentleman  has  toiled  two  days  to  find 
where  something  else  was  practiced,  but  has 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  513 

utterly  failed.  A  more  complete  failure  could 
not  have  been  made.  There  is  not  a  per- 
son in  this  dense  assembly  that  can  think 
of  a  single  evidence  that  sj)rinkling  or 
pouring  was  ever  practiced  by  the  Apostles. 
This,  then,  completes  the  case.  Immersion 
is  baptism,  as  we  both  agree ;  but  he  can 
find  no  account  of  any  thing  else  ever  being 
practiced  by  the  Apostles  for  baptism.  Im- 
mersion is,  then,  the  only  baptism. 

If  baptism  simply  means  ordinance,  and 
not  the  action  that  was  j)erformed,  then, 
truly,  are  we  left  in  the  dark  about  what 
they  did  when  they  baptized ;  but  this 
would  not  prove  that  any  thing  that  the 
idle  imagination  of  man  might  conceive 
was  baptism.  It  would  only  prove  that  we 
know  nothing  about  it,  and  can  know  noth- 
ing. It  is  utterly  incredible  that  the  Al- 
mighty would  institute  a  positive  divine 
ordinance,  and  not  inform  us  how  it  was  to 
be  administered.  But  the  truth  is,  that 
when  the  original  word  is  translated,  what 
is  to  be  done  is  described  as  clearly  as 
language  can  express  any  thing.  ]^o  man 
can  misunderstand  the  following:  "Then 
cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto 
John,  to  be  immersed  of  him.  But  John 
forbade  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  im- 
mersed of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me? 
And  Jesus,  answering,  said  unto  him,  Suf- 
fer it  to  be  so  now  ;  for  thus  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfill  all  righteousness.  Then  ho  suffer- 
ed   him.     And   Jesus,   when    he    was    im- 


514  DEBATE   ON   THE 

mersed,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the 
water;"  Matt.  iii.  13-16.  No  man  would 
misunderstand  this.  Let  me  read  again  : 
"  And  it  came  to  j^ass  in  those  days,  that 
Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  G-alilee,  and 
was  immersed  of  John  in  Jordan  ;"  Mark  i. 
9.  Could  any  one  mistake  what  was  done 
in  this  instance.  Let  us  read  again  :  "And 
John  was  immersing  in  Enon,  near  Salim, 
because  there  was  much  water  there  ;  and 
they  came  and  were  immersed  ;"  John  iii. 
23.  This  is  easily  understood.  Let  us 
read  again :  "  Eepent  and  be  immersed, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ" — "They  who  gladly  received  his 
word  were  immersed;"  Acts  ii.  38-41. 
But  we  read  again,  simj^ly  giving  you 
English  instead  of  Greek  :  "And  now  why 
tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be  immersed  and 
wash  away  thy  sins  ;"  Acts  xxii.  16.  We 
read  again  :  "  And  as  they  went  on  their 
way,  they  came  unto  a  certain  water ;  and 
the  eunuch  said.  See,  here  is  water  ;  what 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  immersed  ?  And 
Philip  said.  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy 
heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and 
said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God.  And  he  commanded  the  chariot 
to  stand  still ;  and  they  went  down  both 
into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch, 
and  he  immersed  him.  And  Avhen  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip);"  Acts  viii. 
36-39.     Again  :   "  Know   ye   not,   that    so 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  515 

many  of  us  as  were  immersed  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  immersed  into  his  death? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  im- 
mersion into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life;"  Eomans  vi.  3-4.  "One 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  immersion;"  Eph.  iv. 
4.  "  Buried  with  him  in  immersion,  where- 
in also  ye  are  risen  with  him;"  Col.  ii.  12. 
These  examples  show  that  the  original 
word  can  be  translated  without  any  cir- 
cumlocution. But  I  have  tried  in  vain  to 
induce  Mr.  M.  to  translate  ^op^i^o  into  Eng- 
lish somehow  ;  but  it  is  such  a  wonderful 
word,  that  no  word  in  our  poor,  barren  and 
feeble  dialect  will  exhaust  its  meaning  !  I 
have  insisted  upon  his  giving  us  a  transla- 
tion even  by  a  circumlocution  ;  but  he  re- 
fuses !  But  now  he  comes  out  and  says, 
"  If  baptism  is  not  the  ordinance,  Avhat  is 
the  ordinance."  Well,  I  will  try  and  tell 
him.  We  find,  in  theE'ew  Testament,  bap- 
tism in  fire,  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  suffer- 
ings, of  hands,  cups,  pots,  beds,  tables  and, 
in  one  place,  we  read  of  "  diverse  bap- 
tisms." All  these  were  as  actual  baptisms 
as  ever  occurred,  but  none  of  them  the  di- 
vine ordinance  or  rite.  It  is  a  baptism  if  a 
Pagan  immerses  himself  in  water,  who  nev- 
er heard  of  the  name  of  Jesus,  but  no  ordi- 
nance or  divine  rite.  But  preach  the  gos- 
pel to  the  Pagan  till  he  believes  it  with  all 
the  heart,  is  changed  in  heart,  repents  and 


516  DEBATE    ON    THE 

confesses  with  the  mouth,  and  immerse 
him  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  you 
have  the  divine  rite  or  ordinance.  Bap- 
tism is  immersion,  and  no  more,  no  matter 
what  is  immersed,  what  the  immersion  is 
in,  nor  what  it  is  for ;  but  the  divine  ordi- 
nance is  more  than  this.  Immersion  is 
simply  an  item  in  the  ordinance,  and  is 
nothing  without  the  proper  subject,  and  ad- 
ministered in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  An 
immersion  is  not  the  ordinance  at  all  with- 
out a  proj)er  subject  and  administered  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord. 

The  gentleman  made  an  effort  to  preju- 
dice the  public  mind  against  us,  or  made 
an  appeal  to  the  prejudice  he  supposed  to 
be  existing  in  the  public  mind,  by  speaking 
of  exclusiveness.  But  nothing  can  be  made 
here,  in  his  favor.  Those  who  persist  in 
maintaining  the  doubtful  j)ractice — that 
which  has  been  in  dispute  ever  since  it  was 
in  existence,  while  they  believe  immersion 
valid  baptism,  and  practice  it  in  some  cases, 
thus  showing  that  they  can  practice  it, 
without  violating  their  consciences,  are  to 
blame  for  keeping  up  the  controversy.  The 
responsibility  rests  upon  those  who  keep 
up  the  doubtful  practice,  and  not  upon  us 
who  only  practice  that  which  pretty  much 
all  admit  valid.  It  is  their  practice  that  in- 
volves thousands  in  doubt  about  their  bap- 
tism all  their  lives.  Many  of  these,  too, 
had  sprinkling  imposed  upon  them   before 


ACTION    OP    BAPTISM.  517 

they  knew  any  thing,  are  in  doubt  about  it 
as  soon  as  they  read  and  think  for  them- 
selves, and  remain  so  to  the  day  of  their 
death.  Many  others  struggle  upon  it  for 
3''ears,  endure  the  taunts  of  being  called 
"ignorant,"  "weak"  and  "frightened,"  be- 
cause they  can  not  be  satisfied  with  what 
they  can  not  believe,  break  over  and  are 
immersed.  Tliousands  of  these  honest, 
pious  and  devoted  souls  have  suffered  im- 
mensely, and  thousands  more  must  suffer 
in  the  same  way,  bo  perplexed  and  kept 
vacillating,  if  the  doubtful  must  be  pressed 
upon  the  people  generally,  and  imposed 
upon  thousands  of  infants  before  they  can 
know  any  thing  about  it.  The  only  relief 
from  all  these  troubles,  and  from  debates  on 
the  subject,  is  to  abandon  the  doubtful,  the 
uncertain,  that  which  has  been  in  dispute 
ever  since  its  existence,  and  j)ractice  that 
which  was  never  in  doubt. 


MR.  MERRILL'S   TENTH  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  and  the  Audience  : 

This  being  the  last  opportunity  I  shall 
have,  according  to  our  rules,  of  presenting 
matters  that  will  be  considered  new,  I  will 
call  your  attention  to  an  item  or  two  of  this 
kind,  before  reviewing  the  gentleman's  last 
speech.  You  will  remember  that,  in  reply 
to  one  of  Mr.  Franklin's  arguments,  I  told 
you  that  when  immersion  became  generally 


518  DEBATE    ON    THE 

prevalent  in  the  church,  while  the  Greek 
language  was  yet  spoken,  the  Christian  fa- 
thers used  kataduo,  and  not  haptizo,  to  ex- 
press the  action  of  baptizing  by  that  mode. 
The  gentleman  passed  over  this  point  very 
slightly — insinuating  that  I  swallowed  it 
down  from  Dr.  Eice  without  credit.  The 
truth  is,  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  established 
by  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  open  for  the 
insjDection  of  every  student.  But  since  the 
gentleman  made  so  light  a  reference  to  Dr. 
Eice,  I  projDose  to  read  you  a  statement  of 
the  matter  by  that  gentleman,  in  his  debate 
with  Mr.  Campbell.  I  use  his  language, 
also,  because  he  has  comprised  numerous 
authorities  in  the  shortest  possible  space. 
1  read  from  page  167:  "It  is  worthy  of 
special  remark,  that  when  immersion  came 
to  be  generally  practiced,  the  Greek  Chris- 
tians, when  they  wished  definitely  to  ex- 
press that  mode,  used  another  word,  kata- 
duo.  On  this  subject  professor  Stuart  says  : 
'Subsequent  ages  make  the  practice  of  the 
church  still  plainer,  if  indeed  this  can  be 
done.  The  Greek  words  kataduo  and  hata- 
dusis  were  employed  as  exj)ressive  of  baptiz- 
ing and  h  apt  ism ;  and  these  words  mean  go- 
ing down  into  the  water ^  or  immerging.  So  in 
the  following  examples :  Chrysostom,  Homil. 
xl.,  I.  Cor.  i.,  to  be  baptized  and  to  sub- 
merge (^IcataduGsthai),  then  to  emerge  (an- 
aneiiein'),  is  a  symbol  of  descent  to  the  grave, 
and  of  ascent  from  it.'  Basil  De  Spiritu.  c. 
15  :  '  By  three  immersions  (e?i  trisi  kaiadu- 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  519 

sesi),  and  by  the  like  number  of  invocations, 
the  great  mystery  of  baptism  is  completed.' 
Damascenus  Orthodox,  Fides  lY.,  10  :  'Bap- 
tism is  a  t^^pe  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  for  by 
three  immersions  (Ji^ataduston)  baptism  sig- 
nifies,' etc.  So  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions (probably  written  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury), Lib.  III.,  ch.  17,  'Immersion  (kata- 
dusis')  denotes  dying  with  him  (Christ)  : 
emersion  (anadusis)  a  resurrection  with 
Christ.'  Photius  {apud  CScumenicum')  on 
Eom.  vi :  '•  The  three  immersions  and  emer- 
sions (Jcataduseis  kai  anaduseis)  of  baptism 
signify  death  and  resurrection.'  Quest, 
apud  Athanasium,  Qu.  94:  'To  immerse 
(katadusai)  a  child  three  times  in  the  bath 
(or  pool)  and  to  emerse  him  (anadusai) ^  this 
shows  the  death,'  etc.  Chrysostom  in  cap. 
3,  Johannis  :  'We,  as  in  a  sepulchre,  immers- 
ing (kataduonton)  our  heads  in  tlie  water, 
the  old  man  is  buried,  and  sinking  down 
(katadus  kato)  the  whole  is  concealed  at 
once ;  then,  as  we  emerge,  the  new  man 
again  rises,'  pp.  73,  74.  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,  speaking  of  Christ's  baptism,  repre- 
sents him  as  saj-ing  to  John,  '  katadvson  me 
iois  Jordanou  reithi'ois' — Plunge  me  in  the 
river  of  Jordan.  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  uses 
this  language  :  '  Plunge  them  (liaduete)  down 
thrice  into  the  water,  and  raise  them  up 
again.'  See  Gale's  Eef  on  Wall,  vol.  3,  pp. 
2U2,  203."  Here,  I  contend,  Ave  have  over- 
whelming testimony  of  the  fact  that  the 
Greeks  did  employ  kataduo  instead  of  lap- 


520  DEBATE    ON    THE 

t'izo^  to  express  the  action  Tvlii(|li  my  friend 
calls  the  only  baptism.  If  haptizo  related  to 
mode  and  nothing  but  mode,  would  this 
have  been  done  ?  Xever  !  But  they  used 
haptizo^  not  to  express  the  mode,  but  just  as 
we  do  now ;  they  used  it  as  a  generic  term, 
expressing  all  that  is  contained  in  the  ordi- 
nance;  and,  therefore,  according  to  Mr. 
Franklin's  own  logic,  it  contained  "  some- 
thing more"  than  the  abstract  idea  of  im- 
mersing. But  it  is  true  that  the  Greeks 
had  three  specific  words  expressive  of  the 
three  modes,  andkatadiio  is  the  specific  term 
that  expressed  immersion.  Groves  defines 
it  thus  :  "  Kataduo  (from  hata^  downwards, 
and  duuo,  to  enter,)  to  go  doiun,  descend  into; 
to  sinh^  immerge^  plunge  ;^^  etc.  If  this  word 
had  been  used  to  denote  the  action  of  bap- 
tism, by  any  inspired  writer,  the  question 
would  have  been  settled,  or  rather  the  con- 
troversy had  never  been  ;  but  such  was  not 
the  case.  This  word  was  only  used  after 
the  ordinance  was  corrupted,  when  its  sim- 
plicity was  despised,  and  its  plain  spiritual 
signification  lost  in  the  "  great  mystery  of 
baptism"  by  three  immersions  ! 

One  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Christian 
fathers  was  Origen.  But  Origen  actually 
used  haptizo  \n  ihQ  ^&n^Q  0^  pouring.  In  I. 
Kings  xviii.,  33,  we  have  an  account  of  the 
use  of  water  by  jyoiiring,  which  Origen  ex- 
presses by  haptizo.  "  And  he  put  wood  in 
order,  and  cut  the  bullock  in  pieces,  and  laid 
him  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four  barrels 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  521 

with  water,  and  pour  it  on  the  hiirnt  sacrifice 
and  on  the  wood^^  etc.  J^ow,  in  allusion  to 
this  transaction,  Origen  says  :  ''How  came 
you  to  think  that  Elias,  Avhen  he  should 
come,  would  6ap^i2;(3,  who  did  not,  in  Ahab's 
time,  haptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which 
was  to  be  washed  before  it  was  burnt,  by 
the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire  ?  But  he  or- 
dered the  priests  to  do  that ;  not  once  only, 
but  says,  do  it  the  second  time;  and  they 
did  it  the  second  time  :  and,  do  it  the  third 
time;  and  they  did  it  the  third  time.  He, 
therefore,  that  did  not  himself  haptip:e  them, 
but  assigned  that  work  to  others,  how  was 
he  likely  to  haptize^  when  he,  according  to 
Malachi's  prophecy,  should  come;"  Wall's 
His.  of  Infant  Baptism.  Why  was  haptizo 
here  used  for  pour,  instead  of  the  specific 
term  ordinarily  employed  to  express  that 
mode  ?  Because  the  mode  was  not  all  that 
was  to  be  expressed.  The  washing  was  re- 
ligious, and  involved  the  idea  of  consecra- 
tion ;  and  haptizo  was  the  very  word  to  con- 
vey the  idea  of  a  consecration  by  water. 
The  word  generally  used  by  the  Cireeks  to 
express  the  mode,  would  have  failed  to  carry 
the  idea  of  the  religious  consecration  ;  but 
the  generic  term  haptizo  expressed  the  whole 
character  of  the  action.  This  example  of 
the  use  of  the  word^  by  this  learned  Christian 
father,  whose  native  tongue  was  the  Greek, 
ought  for  ever  to  silence  all  cavillers,  and 
to  put  to  rest  all  doubts  as  to  the  generic 
character  of  this  word.     It  is  perfect  de- 


522  DEBATE    ON   THE 

monstration.  The  burnt  sacrifice  and  the 
wood  upon  the  altar  were  baptized  when  the 
water  was  poured  upon  them !  I^ow,  what 
great  name  will  the  gentleman  bring  in  op- 
jDOsition  to  the  learned  Origen,  whose  ver- 
nacular was  the  original  of  the  ^ew  Testa- 
ment ? 

Here  are  two  facts  of  great  significance : 
1.  When  the  early  Christians  began  to  bap- 
tize by  immersion,  they  expressed  the  mode 
by  kafaduo,  and  not  by  haptizo.  2.  When 
they  spoke  of  a  religious  washing,  or  con- 
secration by  water,  when  the  mode  was  not 
the  thing  to  be  expressed,  they  used  baptizo, 
as  conveying  the  true  idea  of  consecration, 
whether  the  water  was  used  by  pouring, 
sprinkling,  or  otherwise.  Did  these  G-reek 
fathers  understand  their  own  language  ? 
If  so,  our  immersionist  friends  have  mis- 
taken it  altogether.  There  is  no  baptism 
where  there  is  no  consecration,  I  care  not 
whether  it  is  by  water,  fire.  Spirit,  or  fig- 
uratively by  sufferings ;  there  must  be  a  set- 
ting apart  of  the  person  or  thing  to  a  reli- 
gious service,  or  there  is  no  baptism.  I  care 
not  whether  we  sj^eak  of  Christian  baptism, 
of  John's  baptism,  of  Jewish  baptisms  of 
persons,  pots,  cups,  or  beds^  or  of  any  other 
baptism,  by  water,  fire,  or  vSpirit,  there  must 
be  the  consecration;  nor  is  baptizo  used  in 
all  the  range  of  Holy  Scripture,  with  refer- 
ence to  any  person  or  thing,  or  any  element, 
literal  or  figurative,  where  the  idea  of  a  re- 
ligious consecration  is  not.     The  mere  idea 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  523 

of  mode  is  not  the  thing.  The  Greeks  had 
other  words  to  express  all  the  modes  ;  but, 
amongst  Grreek  Jews  and  Christians,  hap- 
tizo  was  employed  with  strict  reference  to 
religious  consecrations.  This  is  a  fact  at  once 
incontestible,  and  wholly  irreconcilable  with 
the  doctrine  of  exclusive  immersionism. 
When  used  to  express  the  rite  of  Christian 
baptism,  it  means  all  that  is  contained  in 
the  ordinance  ;  and  Mr.  F.  has  admitted  that 
abstract  immersion  may  take  place  where 
there  is  no  ordinance,  and  therefore  where 
there  is  no  baptism.  Immerse  does  not, 
therefore,  exhaust  the  meaning  of  haptizo. 
It  is  not  a  full  equivalent  for  it,  and  there- 
fore ought  not  to  be  used  as  a  translation. 
It  lacks  the  most  important  idea  contained 
in  the  word. 

I  regret  exceedingly  to  see  my  friend  in- 
dulging in  such  a  spirit  as  he  exhibited  in 
his  last  address.  I  know  he  feels  badly  to 
see  the  discussion  of  this  proposition  draw- 
ing to  a  close,  while  his  argument  is  so  far 
behind  that  there  is  no  possible  hope  for 
him  to  sustain  himself;  but  he  should  not 
grow  peevish,  and  throw  angry  flouts  at  the 
audience  on  this  account.  He  sees  a  num- 
ber here  to-night  who  were  not  here  this 
afternoon,  and  he  informs  tliem  that  there 
was  excitement  here  at  our  last  session  ! — 
Now,  in  reply,  I  have  only  to  say  that  the 
"  excitement"  was  confined  to  the  gentle- 
man himself.  True,  a  few  retired  quietly 
while  he  was  speaking,  but  they  were  stran- 


524  DEBATE    ON   THE 

gers  to  him  and  me,  and  neither  of  ns  can 
tell  whether  they  believe  with  him  or  me. 
The}"  doubtless  knew  their  own  business, 
and  were  competent  to  decide  whether  it 
was  worth  while  to  listen  to  his  repetitions 
again  or  not.  Possibly  they  were  his  friends 
who  felt  such  unbounded  confidence  in  his 
capacity  that  they  thought  it  nnnecessar}^ 
to  watch  him ! 

I  am  quite  at  a  loss  to  understand  the 
gentleman  in  some  things.  He  says  a  great 
deal  about  a  class  of  persons  that  he  imag- 
ines quite  large,  who  are  dissatisfied  with 
their  baptism.  He  pays  them  a  very  am- 
biguous compliment.  With  one  breath  he 
makes  them  out  the  most  intelligent,  sin- 
cere, honest  and  independent  of  all  men  ; 
and  with  the  next  he  is  describing  them  as 
the  greatest  dupes  that  live  !  They  are  very 
intelligent,  honest,  sincere;  and  yet,  con- 
trary to  their  own  conscientious  convictions, 
in  spite  of  their  intelligence,  candor  and  in- 
dependence, for  long  years  together,  they 
are  priest-ridden,  humbugged  and  oppress- 
ed, by  ignorant  "sprinkling"  preachers!— 
How  is  all  this?  AYhat  does  it  all  mean  ? 
Is  it  manly,  dignified  and  edifying  discus- 
sion?. And  his  references  to  myself  arc  of 
the  same  character.  With  one  breath  ho 
compliments  ray  coolness  and  self-posses- 
sion ;  and  w^ith  the  next  he  makes  me  out 
excited,  confused,  embarrassed  and  lost ! — 
AYell,  we  will  try  to  a2:)j)reciate  the  gentle- 
man.    Then  he  tells  us  ho  "  exhorts"  be- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  525 

cause  he  feels  "  happy  !"  I  never  "  com- 
plained" of  bis  exhortations.  I  am  willing 
for  him  to  exhort  to  fill  up  his  time.  I 
know  he  feels  better  in  exhorting  than  in 
meeting  the  difiiculties  that  press  nj)on  him. 
There  is  nothing  strange  in  all  this.  I  have 
heard  men  say  that  whenever  they  get  in 
the  "brush"  in  j^reaching,  they  invariably 
leave  the  sermon  and  go  into  exhortation. 
And!  concede  that  my  friend  exhorts  pretty 
well.  As  an  exhorter  he  would  stand  fair. 
But  I  never  knew  one  who  was  good  at  ex- 
hortation to  be  very  good  at  reasoning ;  and 
we  are  here  not  to  exhort,  but  to  reason  ! 
The  people  are  here  not  to  listen  at  exhor- 
tations, but  to  hear  arguments  !  And  I  am 
very  certain  that  the  people  will  conclude, 
that  if  the  gentleman  was  as  "  happy"  as  he 
claimed  to  be,  they  never  will  wish  to  see 
him  when  he  is  very  unhappy  !  And  if  he 
feels  like  "  singing"  his  time  out,  it  will  an- 
swer about  as  well  as  any  thing  he  has  yet 
done. 

Did  you  see  or  hear  me  "abandon"  the 
cases  of  Saul  and  Cornelius?  Kot  a  bit  of 
it !  They  were  in  the  house  when  they 
were  commanded  to  be  baptized,  and  no 
man  on  earth  can  show  that  they  left  the 
house  before  baptism.  Mr.  F.  has  made  no 
effort  to  prove  that  they  did.  He  knows 
not  where  to  begin  the  attempt!  These 
examples  of  baptism  in  the  house  are  not 
abandoned,  but  stand  against  the  gentle- 
man in  all  the  force  of  demonstration.  And 


526  DEBATE    ON   THE 

the  Jailor  is  still  in  his  way.  He  hangs 
with  a  death-grasp  to  the  expression,  "  he 
brought  them  out;"  but  he  refuses  to  look 
at  the  flict  that  this  was  out  of  the  ''  inner 
prison,"  where  the}^  had  been  confined.  He 
has  nothing  under  the  light  of  the  sun  to 
depend  upon  in  this  case  but  his  imagina- 
tion. But  he  has  baptized  in  houses!  Yes, 
modern  customs  have  provided  for  this. 
Baptistries  are  provided  in  imraersionist 
meetinghouses,  but  no  such  thing  was  pro- 
vided for  the  convenience  of  Paul  and  Silas 
in  that  prison.  ]Sror  will  we  allow  the  gen- 
tleman to  dodge  the  laboring  oar !  He 
talks  about  me  not  proving  that  they  were 
baptized  in  the  house  !  Does  he  not  know 
that  they  were  all  in  the  house  when  the 
command  was  given  ?  Does  he  not  know 
that  every  thing  else  they  did  or  were  com- 
manded to  do,  transpired  in  the  house? — 
Then  let  him  get  them  out  for  baptism,  if 
he  can  !  'No  man,  not  even  Mr.  Franklin 
himself,  believes  that  any  one  of  these  was 
immersed  in  the  house.  But  he  talks  about 
"miserable,"  "weak,"  and  "futile"  "ob- 
jections" and  "subterfuges" — and  then  tells 
us  that  there  is  a  pool  in  the  House  of  Re- 
fugo  in  Cincinnati  ;  and  therefore,  there 
might  have  been  immersions  in  the  jail,  al- 
though he  is  quite  certain  the  Jailor  and 
family  were  baptized  out  of  doors  !  I  ask 
again,  if  the  Jailor's  sleeping  apartment 
was  entirely  separate  from  the  prison  build- 
ing, as  Mr.  F.  assumes,  how  did  Paul  hap- 


ACTION    OP   BAPTISM.  527 

pen  to  see  the  keeper's  motions  when  he 
got  the  sword  ?  But  I  need  not  consume 
time.  The  feeble  effort  of  the  gentleman 
proves  that  he  feels  sensibly  the  force  of 
this  example,  and  can  never  meet  it.  His 
remarks  about  my  friends  losing  "  confi- 
dence" in  my  positions,  are  a  little  too  shal- 
low to  need  reply.  He  descends  lower  for 
capital  than  I  supposed  it  possible  for  an 
able  controversialist  to  do. 

He  makes  a  last  rally  to  save  his  argu- 
ment from  the  "burial."  His  friend,  Dr. 
Geo.  Campbell,  will  not  help  him  in  the 
least.  The  fact  is,  the  argument  is  gone 
past  all  hope  of  recovery.  I  laid  down  four 
distinct  propositions,  either  of  which  is  fa- 
tal to  his  argument,  and  he  has  only  mas- 
tered courage  to  attack  one  of  them  ;  and 
in  that  he  has  most  signally  failed.  First, 
the  hurlal — is  it  literal  or  figurative?  If 
literal,  so  is  the  death,  and  the  j)erson  is 
drowned  !  But  if  the  burial  is  figurative, 
it  is  not  immersion.  The  baptism  and  the 
burial  are  distinct.  Secondly,  the  compari- 
son— is  it  between  baptism  and  the  burial 
of  Jesus  Christ?  Not  at  all!  Baptism  is 
not  compared  to  any  thing,  is  not  figura- 
tive, is  no  metaphor,  and  is  not  a  represen- 
tation of  the  sufferings  or  work  of  Christ 
at  all.  The  comparison  is  between  the  cru- 
cifixion, death,  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  the  mystic  crucifixion,  death 
and  burial  of  the  "old  man,"  and  the  new 
life  of  tlie  Christian.     Thirdly,  this  inter- 

35 


528  DEBATE    ON    THE 

pretation  confounds  the  sacraments,  mak- 
ing baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  occupy 
the  same  place,  represent  tlie  same  act,  and 
signify  the  same  thing.  All  this  has  been 
shown  to  be  incorrect,  in  that  it  overlooks 
the  foundation  of  the  ordinances,  in  the  le- 
gal and  moral  aspects  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. And  fourthly,  the  burial  is  not  a  mo- 
mentary action,  as  is  immersion,  but  a  con- 
tinuous effect.  It  is  as  lasting  as  the  cruci- 
fixion and  the  death — as  lasting  as  our 
interest  in  Jesus  Christ.  We  can  not  cease 
to  be  buried  into  the  death  of  Christ,  with- 
out ceasing  to  be  dead  to  sin.  Has  the 
gentleman  met  this  point?  'No,  sir;  he 
has  not  attempted  to  meet  it!  He  has  only 
quibbled  a  little  about  the  tense  and  the 
translation.  And  even  in  this  he  did  not 
mention  the  tense.  He  simply  said  it  was 
the  past  tense.  This  I  knew  and  never 
questioned ;  but  I  claimed  that  the  transla- 
tors were  correct  in  rendering  the  passage 
just  as  they  did.  There  are  several  tenses 
that  relate  to  past  time.  In  this  case,  the 
verb  is  in  the  passive  voice  and  denotes  an 
effect ;  that  effect  began  in  past  time,  and 
continues  up  to  the  present;  the  verb  sunc- 
taphemen  relates  to  the  past,  but  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  j)ast.  The  Aorist  tense  does 
not  require  us  to  suppose  the  effect  expressed 
by  the  verb  to  be  completed  and  past.  It 
is  just  as  if  we  say  of  one  dead  and  buried, 
he  IS  buried;  the  allusion  is  to  the  action  of 
burial  in  past  time,  but  still  the  effect  re- 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  529 

mains  to  the  present.     Thus  the  translators 
understood  it.     They  varied  the  rendering 
to  suit  the  idea,  and  tliere  is  notliing  in  the 
tense,  nor  in  the  connection,  nor  in  the  scope 
and  meaning  of  the  passage,  to  contradict 
their  judgment.     Nor  does  Dr.  Geo.  Camp- 
bell's rendering,  which  Mr.  F.  adopts,  sus- 
tain his  most  unwarrantable  position.     To 
say  we  have  been  buried  into  death,  is  just 
precisely  equivalent  to  saying  that  we  are 
yet  buried,  unless  there  is  positive  evidence 
that  we  have  also  been  unburied  ;  but  here 
there  is  no  such  evidence  nor  intimation. 
The  comparison  is  not  formed  to  suit  the 
views  of  the  gentleman.     The  rising  with 
Christ  is  not  the  rising  out  of  a  burial.     It 
is  not  the  rising  out  of  the  water  of  baptism. 
Nothing  of  the  kind  is  mentioned  or  hinted 
at.     "  That   like  as   Christ  was   raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life."     This  is  very  different  from  rising  out 
of  the  water.     The  idea  of  our  being  un- 
buried or  ceasing  to  be  buried  with  Christ, 
is  not  in  the  passage.     If  we  were,  by  bap- 
tism, buried  into  Christ's  death,  just  so  long- 
as  we  retain  our  union  with  Christ,  we  must 
remain  buried  with  him.     There  is  no  de- 
nying nor  getting  around  this.     But  if  the 
burial  is  figurative — if  it  is  an  effect  distinct 
from  baptism — if  it  is  a  continuous  effect, 
lastinc-as  lonix  as  our  life  is  hid  with  Christ 
in  God,  then  there  is  nothing  in  this  burial 
that   favors  the  idea  of  immersion.     This 


530  DEBATE    ON   THE 

f^trongliold  of  the  exclusive  system  yields  it 
no  support  whatever  !  And  if  immersion 
is  not  taught  here,  it  is  not  taught  in  the 
Eible.  If  my  friend  fails  here,  he  fails  every 
where  and  for  ever  ! 

The  gentleman  says,  "  If  baptism  simply 
meanR  ordinance,"  etc.;  now  what  does  he 
mean  by  this  ?  Does  he  not  mean  to  mis- 
lead some  who  have  not  been  here  all  the 
time,  into  the  notion  that  I  have  said  "  bap- 
tism simply  means  ordinance?"  Why  does 
the  gentlemen  indulge  in  such  unworthy 
insinuations  ?  If  he  wishes  any  one  to  sup- 
pose I  have  said  any  thing  of  that  sort, 
why  has  he  not  the  manliness  to   say   so  ? 

He  knows  very  well  I  never  said,  hinted 
nor  insinuated  that  bajDtism  means  ordi- 
nance— much  less  that  it  "  simply  means 
ordinance  !"  I  put  it  to  him  as  a  man  of 
honor  :  Is  he  justifiable  in  trying  to  insinu- 
ate what  he  dare  not  assert  boldly  ? 

He  gave  you  a  list  of  quotations  with  the 
word  immerse  substituted  for  baptize — ■ 
what  did  all  that  amount  to  ?  Did  it  prove 
that  immerse  is  a  full  equivalent  for  bap- 
tize ?  It  did  not !  And  he  tried  to  tell 
what  else  beside  baptism  is  necessary  to 
make  up  the  ordinance  of  baptism  !  But 
did  he  show  that  haptismos  is  not  the  name 
of  the  ordinance?  Did  he  show  that  Chris- 
tian baptism  can  take  place  without  the 
full  administration  of  the  ordinance?  He 
did  not  and  can  not.  His  absurd  notion, 
that  wherever  there  is  an  immersion,  there 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  531 

is  a,  baptism,  drives  him  to  these  puerilities. 
And  he  repeated  the  old  tlireadbare  asser- 
tion respecting  the  cloud  covering  the  Is- 
raelites in  the  sea,  so  as  to  form  an  im- 
mersion ;  but  did  he  offer  any  argument  or 
proof  on  that  subject  ?  ISTot  a  bit !  The 
Psalm  before  quoted  tells  what  the  cloud 
did.  The  only  people  immersed  on  that  oc- 
casion were  the  Egyptians  ;  but  they  were 
not  baptized — not  consecrated — unto  Moses 
nor  anybody  else  !  'There  was  no  baptism 
in  their  case,  although  there  was  an  im- 
mersion. He  has  once  or  twice  quoted  the 
words,  "  divers  baptisms  ;"  but  he  has  not 
yet  ventured  to  favor  us  with  his  views  of 
the  "  divers  baptisms,"  nor  has  he  attempt- 
ed to  meet  the  fact  that  they  were  expressly 
enjoined  to  be  done  by  sprinkling.  He 
again  tried  to  make  light  of  the  difficulties 
attending  the  immersing  of  the  multitude 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  has  he  shown 
where  the  water  was  obtained?  He  has 
not,  and  he  can  not !  Has  he  proven  that 
there  was  time  enough  to  immerse  them  ? 
ISTot  yet!  He  talked  about  disposing  of 
two  in  a  minute ;  but  does  he  expect  any 
one  to  believe  this  on  his  bare  assertion  ? 
The  thing  is  preposterous  !  And  he  again 
glanced  at  the  objection  to  his  exclusive 
system  on  the  ground  of  impracticability  ; 
but  did  he  look  at  it  fairly  as  I  presented 
it?  Not  he  I  Did  he  deny  that  millicms  of 
human  beings  exist  in  the  frozen  regions  of 
the  North,   where    water    for    immersion 


532  DEBATE    ON    THE 

could  only  be  obtained  by  melting  snow 
and  ice?  Has  he  demonstrated  the  uni- 
versal practicability  of  immersion  ?  Has 
he  attempted  to  do  it  ?  Not  he  !  He  con- 
tents himself  with  giving  a  distorted  view 
of  the  objection,  and  making  light  of  it ! 
He  pretends  to  have  seen  a  mark  on  a  map 
showing  a  river  in  the  desert  of  Judea, 
winding  through  the  mountains  for  a  hun- 
dred miles,  but  can  not  give  its  name  nor 
its  size.  He  seems  to  think  that  after  run- 
ning a  hundred  miles,  it  must  have  water 
enough  to  immerse  in  !  But  does  he  not 
know  that  even  according  to  his  own  show- 
ing, if  Philip  baptized  in  it  at  all,  it  was 
right  at  its  head  waters  in  the  mountains  ? 
And  have  I  not  proved,  by  the  most  reli- 
able witnesses,  that  there  was  no  stream 
there,  unless  it  was  a  mere  mountain  tor- 
rent ?  And  has  he  not  failed  to  show  that 
eh  would  take  the  nobleman  any  deeper 
into  the  water  than  it  would  Philip  ?  Has 
he  not  persistently  refused  to  affirm  that 
eis  necessarily  expresses  an  entrance  at  all  ? 
And  have  I  not  proved  that  it  does  not  ? 
He  fails  in  the  metaphor  of  the  birth  ;  he 
fails  in  the  burial ;  he  fails  in  the  baptisms 
of  John  in  Jordan  ;  he  fails  in  the  case  of 
the  eunuch  ;  he  fails  in  the  meaning  of  the 
word  tested  by  classic  use,  by  Bible  use,  by 
lexicons  and  critics  ;  he  fails  in  history  and 
in  every  thing  !  Yet  he  claims  a  great  vic- 
tory !     Well,  he  is  easily  satisfied  ! 

The  only  thing  that  remains  is,  that  we 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  533 

all  admit  that  immersion  will  do!  But  for 
this  admission,  where  would  he  have  been? 
This  one  string  he  has,  and  he  pulls  it 
faithfully.  Immersion  is  "  safe,"  because 
w^e  all  admit  tliat  it  will  do  !  This  "  safe" 
argument  is  not  addressed  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  people,  but  to  the  fears  of 
the  less  intelligent.  It  is  just  such  an  argu- 
ment as  the  trembling  cause  demands  ! 
What  li.i]:ht  does  it  cast  on  the  Bible  teach- 
ing? What  force  has  it  in  the  minds  of 
thinking  people?  Just  none  at  all!  We 
shall  now  hear  the  gentleman's  "recapitu- 
lation "  and  his  "  reaffirmations,"  and  I 
trust  you  will  hear  him  patiently. 


MR.  FRANKLIN'S  CLOSING  SPEECH. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  rise  to  close  my  part  of  the  argument 
on  this  question.  I  shall  spend  my  half- 
hour  in  recapitulating  and  summing  up  the 
argument,  without  any  reference  to  the 
speech  just  heard,  save  what  comes  up  in- 
cidentally. The  narrow  limits  of  a  half- 
hour  will  allow  but  a  very  brief  statement. 
The  matter  before  us  is  simply  what  the 
Apostles  did  when  they  baptized.  What 
did  the  Lord  command  men  to  do  when  he 
said,  "  Be  baptized?"  AVhat  did  he  com- 
mand men  to  do  when  he  said  "  Baptize?" 
Those  questions  must  be  settled  before  any 
man  can  know  that  he  has  been  baptized,  or 


531  DEBATE    ON    THE 

how  to  baptize  anybody  else.  I  maintain 
that  the  Lord  has  not  only  commanded 
men  to  be  baptized,  but  revealed  precisely 
what  is  to  he  done.  My  opponent  admits  the 
commandment,  but  denies  that  what  is  to 
be  done  is  revealed.  To  this  hour,  he  has 
not  pointed  to  any  act,  and  said,  that  is 
what  the  Lord  commanded,  much  less  to 
any  three  acts.  His  work  has  not  been  to 
enlighten,  to  show  that  any  one  act,  or  any 
three  acts,  are  commanded,  but  to  mystify. 
My  argument  is  as  follows  : 

I.  That  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles,  when 
they  expressed  what  was  to  be  done  literal- 
ly, used  but  one  word,  and  one  word  can 
have  but  one  meaning,  when  applied  to  one 
thing.  The  word  bcqytizo,  in  some  of  its 
forms,  is  applied  to  the  rite  more  than 
eighty  times  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
rule  in  translating  is,  that  a  word  must  be 
used  in  the  primary  sense,  unless  there  is 
something  in  the  context  forbidding  it. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  context,  in  a  single 
instance,  making  the  least  reason  for  adopt- 
ing any  meaning  but  the  primary.  It  is, 
then,  beyond  all  dispute,  to  be  taken  in  its 
primary  meaning.  The  primary  meaning, 
in  every  lexicon  either  of  us  ever  saw,  is 
immersion.  The  Lord,  then,  unquestionably 
commanded  people  to  be  immersed,  and 
nothing  else. 

Mr.  M.  has  tried  to  set  this  aside  in  two 
or  three  ways.  He  asserted  that  baptize  is 
the  proper  name  of  the  ordinance,  but  for 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  535 

this,  up  to  this  hour,  he  has  ottered  no  au- 
thority but  his  own  unsupported  assertion, 
and  never  can.  He  then  resorted  to  Jew- 
ish ceremonies  to  find  sprinkling^  and  tried 
to  have  you  infer  from  this  hoAV  the 
Apostles  baptized  !  Bat  this  was  so  ob- 
viously ridiculous,  that  it  deserves  no  con- 
sideration. Baptism  was  not  taken  from 
Judaism  nor  Paganism,  and  we  can  not  learn 
from  either  what  it  is.  AYe  must  consult 
Jesus  and  the  Apostles,  to  learn  how  an  or- 
dinance of  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered. 

II.  In  departing  from  the  appointment 
of  God,  in  that  which  the  ministry  have  to 
perform  with  their  own  hands,  they  never 
depart  from  the  convenient,  pleasant  and 
easy,  to  the  inconvenient,  unpleasant  and 
laborious.  To  this  the  gentleman  has  not 
produced  a  single  exception.  It  is  perfectly 
natural,  when  pride,  love  of  ease  and  car- 
nality had  possessed  the  hearts  of  the  min- 
istry, that  they  should  have  departed  from 
the  unpleasant,  inconvenient  and  laborious 
practice  of  immersion,  and  adopted  the 
light,  easy  and  convenient  practice  of  sprink- 
ling. This,  the  unanimous  voice  of  history 
assures  us,  is  the  true  state  of  the  case.  The 
gentleman  knows  that  when  the  dark  ages 
had  reached  the  most  revolting  period,  im- 
mersion was  put  down,  and  sprinkling 
gained  its  greatest  prevalence  ;  and  as  soon 
as  the  light  of  reformation  dawned,  im- 
mersion commenced  reviving,  and  has  been 


536  DEBATE   ON    THE 

on  the  increase  ever  since.  In  the  most  en- 
lightened parts  of  the  reformation  of  the 
last  three  centuries,  immersion  is  gaining 
with  the  greatest  rapidity.  In  these  United 
States,  where  investigation  is  freer  than 
any  place  in  the  world,  immersion  is 
sjDreading  more  rapidly. 

III.  The  Methodist  Discipline,  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  John  Wesley  and  my  worthy  oppo- 
nent, agree  with  me  that  immersion  is  bap- 
tism. So  flxr,  the  matter  is  settled.  This  is 
precisely  the  extent  that  I  am  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  this  far,  it  is  conceded  that  I  am 
right.  The  only  question  remaining,  is 
simply  whether  any  thing  else  is  baptism. 
My  worthy  friend  thinks  something  else  is 
baptism,  though  he  could  not  be  induced  to 
affirm  it.  You  have  seen  that  he  was  wise 
in  this,  for  up  to  this  hour  he  has  utterly 
failed  to  find  a  trace  of  any  thing  else  for 
baptism.  An  argument  could  not  stand 
more  triumphant  than  mine  does  here.  He 
immerses  himself,  and  calls  it  baptism,  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  He  believes  it  to  be 
such. 

lY.  Those  who  were  proper  subjects,  and 
have  been  immersed,  are  satisfied,  living 
and  dying,  for  time  and  eternity.  They 
search  the  Discipline,  to  know  whether 
they  have  been  baptized.  It  endorses  their 
baptism.  They  go  to  Wesley,  and  he  en- 
dorses it,  Clarke,  Luther,  Calvin  and  my 
worthy  opponent  endorse  it.  Their  own 
consciences  endorse  it.     All  of  any  note  en- 


ACTION   OP    BAPTISM.  537 

dorse  it.  Better  than  all — nobody  of  any 
note  doubts  that  the  Bible  endorses  it. 
"With  this  endorsement,  those  immersed 
are,  if  not  quite,  almost  unanimously  satis- 
fied. But  what  a  sad  picture  we  have  on 
the  other  side !  Thousands  upon  thou- 
sands, as  honest  as  live,  as  desirous  to  serve 
God,  and  devoted,  have  never  been,  and  can 
never  he,  satisfied  with  their  sprinkling ! 
They  are  unhappy  and  must  remain  so,  or 
be  immersed.  Their  preachers,  whom  they 
love,  and  in  whom  they  have  confidence, 
pray  with,  talk  with  them,  and  try  to  satis- 
fy them,  but  can  not.  Shall  they  continue 
to  involve  others  in  the  same  state  of  doubt 
and  uncertainty,  and  in  thousands  of  in- 
stances, in  their  infancy,  before  they  have 
ever  had  a  thought  or  impulse  on  the  sub- 
ject, or  cease  this  doubtful  practice  ? 

Y.  The  Greek  Church,  from  its  com- 
mencement, has  practiced  nothing  but  im- 
mersion, through  all  the  changes  and  vicissi- 
tudes of  the  many  long  centuries  of  its  his- 
tory. It  received  the  ordinance  in  the 
Greek  language,  knew  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo  when  they  received  it,  have  used  the 
same  word  to  express  the  action  from  that 
time  to  the  present,  and  have  kept  the 
same  action.  No  matter  how  much  the 
language  has  changed,  as  spoken  by  Greeks, 
that  word  has  not  changed,  nor  have  they 
changed  the  action  expressed  by  it. 

YI.  Sprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptism, 
or  the  original  words  for  sjor inkle  or  pour, 


5  38  DEBATE    ON    THE 

are  not  mentioned  in  any  thing  written  in 
the  first  two  centuries  of  the  church, 
neither  in  the  Bible  nor  any  book.  This 
argument  remains  invulnerable.  ISTeither 
the  worthy  gentleman  nor  any  man  has, 
or  can,  invalidate  this  ;  and  this  being  the 
case,  is  an  end  to  all  controversy  on  this 
point.  That  which  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  Bible  at  all,  nor  any  book  written  in 
the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Christian  era, 
is  without  divine  authority  beyond  all  con- 
tradiction. 

Yir.  Immersion  was  invariably  practiced 
by  all  Christians  for  the  first  thirteen  hun- 
dred years  of  the  church.  A  more  gener- 
ally received  and  better  attested  fact  than 
this,  is  not  found  in  all  history.  There  can 
be  no  exception  to  this  except  clinics^  and 
they  were  never  allowed  to  hold  ofiico ;  not, 
as  Mr.  M.  has  said,  because  their  repent- 
ance was  doubtful,  for  far  the  greater  por- 
tion of  them  were  infants,  whom  they  all 
knew  had  no  repentance  at  all ;  nor  were 
there  any  of  these  till  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century.  Mr.  M.  has  admitted, 
when  on  another  point,  and  not  think- 
ing of  this,  the  truth  of  this  statement 
so  far  as  the  first  half  of  the  thousand 
years  of  the  dark  ages  is  concerned,  and 
upon  the  same  ground  may  admit  all.  This 
argument,  then,  stands  invulnerable  and 
unanswered. 

YIII.  The  meaning  of  a  word  inserted  for 
the  word  itself  will  always  make  sense.     If 


ACTION   OF    BAPTISM.  539 

baptize  means  the  proper  name  of  an  ordi- 
naoce,  it  will  make  sense  to  insert  that  in 
the  place  of  it.  If  it  means  sprinkle  or  pour, 
it  will  make  sense  to  insert  sprinkle  or 
pour  in  the  place  of  baptize.  It  makes 
sense  to  say,  "  Were  immersed  of  him  in 
Jordan,"  but  it  will  not  do  to  say,  "  Sprin- 
kled of  him  in  Jordan."  See  Matt.  iii.  5-6. 
It  will  not  do  to  say,  "  He  shall  sprinkle 
you  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire;" 
but  it  will  make  sense  to  say,  "  Immerse 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  fire."  See  Matt.  iii. 
11.  My  friend  revolted  at  the  idea  of  say- 
ing, "  Are  you  able  to  be  sprinkled  with 
the  sprinkling  that  I  am  to  be  sprinkled 
with,"  and  admitted  that  an  overwhelming 
was  meant  here.  See  Matt.  xx.  22.  "  They 
went  down  into  the  water  and  he  sprinkled 
him  ;"  Acts  viii.  38.  "  They  were  all  sjorin- 
kled  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea  ;"  I.  Cor.  x.  1-2.  "  Buried  with  him  in 
sprinkling,  Avherein  also  you  are  risen  with 
him."  See  Col.  ii.  12.  "We  are  buried 
with  him  by  sprinkling."  See  Horn.  vi.  4. 
These  and  many  other  examples,  show 
that  sprinkle  can  not  be  substituted  for 
baptize;  but  immerse  can  be  substituted 
in  every  place.  This  argument  stands 
unanswered,  and  unanswerable.  That 
which  we  all  agree  is  baptism,  can  be 
substituted  for  the  word,  and  will  make 
sense  in  every  j)lace,  and  is  unquestiona- 
bly the  meaning  of  the  word.  That 
meaning  is  imnierae.  and  nothing  else. 


540  DEBATE    ON   THE 

IX.  All  the  lexicons  either  of  us  ever 
saw,  give  immerse,  or  some  word  of  the 
same  import,  as  the  first  meaning  of  the 
word  in  dispute.  This  is  authority  and 
nothing  but  authority.  They  do  not  give 
the  name  of  the  ordinance  as  a  meaning 
of  the  word  at  all ;  nor  does  any  authority 
in  the  world.  The  most  of  the  lexicons, 
and  I  think  all  we  have  seen,  do  not  give 
sprinkle  or  pour  as  a  meaning  at  all.  This 
shows  that  sprinkle  and  pour  have  no  au- 
thority at  all.  That  the  Lord  invariably 
used  the  word  baptizo  to  ex]Dress  the  thing 
to  be  done,  is  not  denied.  That  in  using 
the  one  word  more  than  eighty  times  to 
express  literally  what  was  to  be  done,  in  re- 
ference to  the  same  thing,  he  must  not  only 
always  have  used  it  in  the  same  sense,  but 
in  its  primary  sense,  is  evident  to  all.  This 
has  not  been  denied.  Its  primary  sense 
is  immerse.  This  has  never  been  answered, 
and  never  can  be. 

X.  The  Greeks  had  three  distinct  words 
for  three  distinct  acts,  as  we  have  in  Eng- 
lish, and  they  never  used  one  of  these 
words  for  the  other.  In  the  Septuagint, 
Lev.  xiv.  14-15,  we  find  the  three  words 
expressing  the  three  acts.  Here  in  one 
sentence  we  find  hapto  translated  dip^  chco 
translated  poi^r,  and  ramo  translated  sprm- 
kle.  Any  man  can  see  that  one  of  these 
words  can  not  be  changed  for  the  other. 
In  the  New  Testament,  we  find  the  three 
words,    haptizo,  cheo   and  raino,  and  every 


ACTION   OP    BAPTISM.  541 

one  can  see  that  they  can  not  be  used  inter- 
changeably. You  find  the  word  sprinkle 
some  seven  times  in  the  K^ew  Testament, 
but  you  destroy  the  sense,  in  any  of  the 
places,  if  you  insert  either  pour  or  im- 
merse. Where  you  find  c/iea,  you  can  not 
use  sprinkle  or  immerse.  Where  you  find 
baptizo,  yoti  can  not  use  sprinkle  or  pour. 
This  shows  that  haptizo  means  immerse, 
and  not  sprinkle  or  pour.  Sprinkle  or 
pour,  or  their  Greek  representatives,  are 
never  used  to  express  the  action,  or  what 
was  to  be  done  in  baptizing. 

XI.  Every  time  the  King  James'  trans- 
lators have  translated  hapto^  or  haptizo^  ex- 
cept wash,  as  a  result,  and  not  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  they  have  given  us  some- 
thing equivalent  to  immerse,  and  never 
sprinkle  or  pour.  In  the  Septuagint,  in  the 
account  of  Xaaman  dipping  himself  seven 
times  in  Jordan,  we  have  haptizo  translated, 
in  the  common  version,  dipped.  In  the 
New  Testament,  hapto  only  occurs  four  or 
five  times,  and  is  translated  dip.  I  have 
here,  then,  evidence  that  the  King  James' 
translators  knew  the  meaning  of  bapto  and 
haptizo^  in  the  fact  that  they  have  transla- 
ted both,  in  the  common  version,  into  a 
word  equivalent  to  immerse.  They  have 
thus  translated  it  in  every  instance  where 
they  have  translated  it  at  all.  Their 
testimony,  then,  is  in  favor  of  immersion. 
To  this  hour,  this  argument  remains  un- 
answered. 


542  DERATE    ON    THE 

XII.  "  They  went  down  into  the  water," 
"came  up  out  of  the  water,"  and  were 
"  baptized  in  the  river,"  when  they  were 
baptized  anciently.  The  Lord  was  "  bap- 
tized m  Jordan,''  and  "  went  up  straightway 
out  of  \\\Q  water."  They  not  only  "went 
into  the  water,"  but  "  went  down  into  the 
water,"  and  not  only  "came  out  0/ the 
water,"  but  "  came  up  out  of  the  water,"  and 
"  were  baptized,"  not  at  the  water,  nor  by 
it,  but  "  i*;t  the  water."  In  all  the  passages 
in  proof,  that  eis  is  correctly  translated  into, 
and  eh  correctly  translated  out  of  has  not 
been  denied.  The  fact,  then,  that  when 
about  to  baptize,  "  they  went  down  into  the 
water."  and  when  they  baptized,  they  "  bap- 
tized in  water,"  and  when  they  had  bap- 
tized, "they  came  up  out  of  the  water," 
shows,  beyond  cavil,  how  they  baptized. 
They  immersed  in  water. 

XIII.  They  baptized  in  a  certain  place 
because  there  was  much  water  there. 
"  And  John  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water 
there ;"  John  iii.  23.  The  reason  given 
for  baptizing  in  this  place,  is  "  because 
there  teas  much  water  there."  John,  certainly 
did  not  sprinlde  in  Enon  because  there  was 
much  water  there,  for  he  did  not  need  "  much 
water,"  nor  "  many  waters,"  to  sprinkle ; 
but  he  did  need  much  water  to  immerse, 
and  immersed  there  because  there  was 
much  water  there.  The  argument  for  im- 
mersion, from  this  expression,  remains  en- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  543 

tirely  unanswered.  The  worthy  gentle- 
man simply  ventured  the  question,  "  May 
not  the  original  for  'much  water'  be  trans- 
lated 'many  waters?'  "  Probably  it  may, 
in  some  instances;  but  that  would  be  as 
favorable  to  immersion  as  the  present  ver- 
sion. But  there  is  no  doubt  but  the  pres- 
ent version  is  correct. 

XIY.  Col.  ii.  12,  we  read  of  being  "  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,"  and  Eom.  vi.  4,  being 
"  buried  with  him  by  baptism."  The  worthy 
gentleman  has  put  his  wits  to  the  torture,  to 
invent  some  way  to  escape  the  force  of 
this  argument,  but  no  way  of  escape  has 
been  afforded  him.  So  long  as  it  is  admit- 
ted true,  that  they  "buried  with  him  in 
haptism^'^  and  "  buried  with  him  hyhaptism^^^ 
no  sound  reason  will  attempt  to  evade  im- 
mersion. His  attempt  to  set  this  aside, 
by  contending  that  it  was  in  the  present 
tense,  is  all  set  at  naught  by  the  fact  that, 
in  the  original,  it  is  in  the  past  tense.  ISTot 
only  so,  but  the  burial  is  "  by  baptism,"  and 
*'  in  baptism,"  and  no  cavil  can  evade  it. 

XY.  The  figurative  expression,  "  born  of 
water,"  John  iii.  5,  implies  coming  forth 
from  the  water,  which  can  not  be  only  in 
immersion.  This  argument  has  been  met 
in  no  way  only  by  mere  sophistry  and  a 
pitiful  affectation  of  modesty.  But  the  lan- 
guage is  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  and  no  af- 
fected modesty  will  bring  his  words  into 
disrepute.  The  argument  from  his  holy 
words  stands  unanswered,  and  will  till  the 

36 


544:  DEBATE    ON    THE 

day  when  he  shall  be  ashamed  of  them  who 
are  ashamed  of  Him  and  his  words. 

XYI.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  ex- 
pression, "planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,"  Rom.  vi.  5,  remains  invulner- 
able. They  are  in  the  likeness  of  his  death 
when  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death,  and,  at  the  same  time,  planted  to- 
gether with  him.  This  remains  unanswer- 
ed and  unanswerable.  There  is  no  ^'■plant- 
ing together  with  him,"  in  sprinkling. 

XYlI.  Heb.  X.  22,  we  read  of  the  body 
being  washed  in  water.  I  take  it,  that  the 
language  is  true,  that  speaks  of  the  body 
hoing' ^'- washed  with  jjure  icater,'^  and  being 
"baptized  in  icater^'"  and  this  language  be- 
ing true,  they  were  immersed,  beyond 
doubt.  This  has  received  nothing  bearing 
any  semblance  to  a  reply. 

XYIII.  The  baptism  of  sufferings,  the 
gentleman  has  admitted  to  be  an  over- 
whelming. This  could  not  be,  if  the  word 
haptizo  did  not  mean  overwhelm.  Thus  I 
close  my  list  of  direct  argument.  If  an 
argument  can  bo  conclusive,  mine  is,  that 
immersion,  and  nothing  else,  is  baptism. 

The  worthy  gentleman  inquires,  "  Did 
he  show  that  haptismos  is  not  the  proper 
name  of  the  ordinance  ?"  If  I  did  not,  I 
very  soon  can,  or  else  the  proper  name  is 
never  applied  to  the  ordinance  in  the  IJn^cw 
Testament.  Baptismos  only  occurs  four 
times  in  the  ISTew  Testament,  and  is  never 
applied  to   the   ordinance.     It  is  found  in 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM. 


545 


Mark  vii.  4-8,  Heb.  vi.  2,  and  ix.  10.  This 
ought  to  be  an  end  to  this  sophistry.  Bap- 
tizo  is  the  verb  transferred,  in  the  common 
version,  hajptize  and  baptized.  Baptisma  is 
the  noun,  transferred  haptism  in  every 
place,  or  in  twenty-two  places  in  the  New 
Testament.  Baptizo  expresses  the  action^ 
the  precise  action,  and  nothing  else,  and 
haptisma  expresses  the  name  of  the  action. 
There  is  no  ordinance,  nor  name  of  an  or- 
dinance, in  either  haptizo  or  haptisma ;  for 
the  latter  occurs  five  times  where  there  is 
no  ordinance  and  the  former  eighteen 
times.  This  is  an  end  of  one  sophistry, 
taken  probably  upon  trust  from  Dr.  iN".  L. 
Rice,  or  rather  from  JST.  L.  Eice  before  he 
was  Doctor. 

Failing  to  sustain  himself,  and  becoming 
perplexed  above  measure,  he  resorts  to  Dr. 
Eice  again,  and  deals  out  some  of  his  quo- 
tations, without  knowing  whether  they  are 
correct  or  not,  to  show  that  when  they  first 
commenced  immersing  for  baptism,  the 
Greeks  applied  katadiw,  and  noi  haptizo., 
to  the  ordinance ;  but,  unfortunately  for 
him,  there  is  nothing  about  the  heginning  of 
immersion  for  baptism,  and  not  the  least 
evidence  that  haptizo  loas  not  used,  but  sim- 
ply evidence  that  kataduo  was  used  in  some 
instances.  This  evidence  amounts  to  noth- 
ing. Baptizo  may  have  been  used  fifty 
times,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance,  for  one 
occurrence  of  hataduo. 

I  deny  that  Origen  "  used  haptizo  in  the 


546  DEBATE   ON   THE 

sense  o^pouringy  The  Eible  gives  the  fact 
that  four  barrels  of  water  was  poured  upon 
the  wood.  But  Origen  does  not  call  the 
pouring  baptizing,  but  simply  states  the 
fact  that  the  wood  was  baptized.  This 
was  true ;  the  w^ood  was  immersed.  The 
pouring  was  not  the  baptizing,  nor  was  the 
baptizing  pouring ;  but  the  pouring  was 
so  great  that  the  result  was  that  the  wood 
was  immersed.  The  object  of  the  pouring 
was  to  wet  the  wood  so  as  to  show  that 
it  could  not  burn  without  a  miracle. 
There  was  pouring  for  this  purpose  to  the 
amount  of  four  barrels  of  water.  This  re- 
sulted in  something  besides  pouring — im- 
niersing  the  wood.  Origen  did  not  call  the 
pouring  haptizing.  Mr.  M.  had  better  let  go 
the  skirts  of  Mr.  Eice,  or  they  will  both 
sink  together.  He  does  better  when  he 
trusts  to  his  own  resources,  and  keeps  in  a 
good  humor. 

After  harping  upon  the  figment,  of  bap- 
tism being  the  name  of  the  ordinance,  for 
two  days,  and  it  is  fully  exploded,  Mr.  M. 
tries  one  more  expedient.  Baptizo  means 
to  consecrate !  What  sublime  scenes  he 
brings  before  our  minds!  To  believe  him, 
they  consecrated  the  wood  by  pouring  four 
barrels  of  water  upon  it !  The  Assyrian 
king  was  consecrated  with  the  dews  of 
heaven  !  The  Jews  consecrated  beds  !  The 
Lord  was  consecrated  in  Jordan!  and 
again  consecrated  in  sufferings  !  What  a 
miserable  resort,  this ! — put  off,  too,  till  I 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  547 

might  not  have  an  opportunity  to  refute  it  ! 
But  haptizo  has  no  consecrate  in  it.  It  has 
no  cleanse  in  it,  or  there  could  be  no  bap- 
tism of  sufferings.  It  has  no  water  in  it, 
or  there  could  be  no  baptism  of  fire.  It  has 
no  fire  in  it,  or  there  could  be  no  baptism 
of  water.  It  has  no  sprinhle  in  it,  for  the 
baptism  of  sufferings  he  has  admitted  to 
be  an  overwhelming.  There  was  baptizing, 
but  no  sprinkling  or  pouring.  Baptizo  has 
one  idea  in  it,  and  that  is  always  present, 
unless  used,  as  it  never  is  in  tiie  New  Tes- 
tament, in  such  a  latitudinous  sense,  as  in 
some  of  the  cases  mentioned  by  Carson,  and 
over  which  the  worthy  gentleman  has 
spent  so  much  breath,  where  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word  is  entirely  lost,  and 
where  it  is  used  in  an  appropriated  sense, 
in  reference  to  dyeing,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  original  meaning  of  the  word. 
There  is  an  appropriate  sense  in  which 
words  lose  all  their  original  meaning.  The 
instrument  in  which  the  printer  sets  his 
type,  when  composing,  being  first  made  of 
wood,  was  called  "  stick,"  and  is  called  the 
same  still,  though  made  of  iron  or  steel. 
The  Q,2in&\Q- stick  retains  in  its  name  still  the 
"  stick,"  though  made  of  iron,  brass,  glass 
or  silver  ;  but  no  man  whose  object  is  to  en- 
lighten anybody,  would  go  to  this  latter 
material  to  learn  what  the  original  name 
means.  But  the  use  of  the  word  baptize 
shows  that  it  is  not  used  in  any  such  ap- 
propriated sense,  but  in  its  original,  prima- 


548  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ry  andliteral  meaning,  and  beingalways ap- 
plied to  the  same  thing  when  applied  to  the 
ordinance,  it  must  always  have  the  same 
meaning.  Il^othing  but  immerse  comports 
with  its  history  in  the  ^ew  Testament. 
They  went  to  certain  places  to  baptize  "  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there."  "  They 
went  down  into  the  water."  The}'-  "  buried 
in  baptism,"  "baptized  in  the  river,"  "  went 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water,"  or  "  came 
wp  out  of  the  water."  This  is  an  end  to  all 
cavil.  Here  is  something  satisfactory^  and 
reliable.  AH  this  harmonizes  with  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else.  They  immersed 
in  Jordan — in  Enon — were  "  buried  with 
him  in  immersion" — "were  buried  with 
him  by  immersion,"  in  which  their  "  bodies 
were  washed  ;"  they  were  "planted  togeth- 
er in  the  likeness  of  his  death" — "  risen 
with  him,"  and  the}^  have  a  consciousness 
of  having  done  what  the  Lord  commaiided, 
and  are  at  rest,  and  will  remain  so,  so  far 
as  baptism  is  concerned.  They  do  not  have 
to  twist  hfty  ways  to  prove  that  baptism 
was  administered  in  a  house,  or  out  of  it. 
Nobody  of  any  note  denies  their  baptism, 
or  ever  will.  Shall  we  all  practice  this,  and 
have  done  with  involving  honest  souls  in 
the  doubtful,  uncertain  and  unsatisfactory 
practice  that  has  involved  so  many  sincere 
souls  in  the  most  serious  trouble? 

If  you  are  still  in  doubt,  inquire  what 
you  are  in  doubt  about !  Not  immersion, 
certainly;  for  my   friend's   Discipline   en- 


ACTION   OF  BAPTISM.  549 

dorses  it.  Not  immersion,  assuredly ;  for 
Wesley,  Clarke,  Luther  and  Calvin  endorse 
it.  Not  in  doubt  about  immersion,  surely ; 
for  my  friend  endorses  it,  lifting  his  hand 
to  heaven,  and  calling  it  baptism,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  and  administering  it, 
which  he  could  not  do  without  ruining  his 
own  soul,  if  he  did  not  believe  it  to  be  bap- 
tism. Most  unquestionably  you  are  not  in 
doubt  about  immersion ;  for  the  wholo 
Methodist  Church  endorse  it,  and  admit  it 
to  be  baptism,  while  only  a  part  of  them 
believe  sprinkling  to  be  baptism  at  all. 
You  are  not  in  doubt  about  immersion ;  for 
those  immersed  are  satisfied,  while  living, 
and  when  dying,  but  many  that  are  sprink- 
led are  not  satisfied,  either  while  living  or 
dying.  No  ;  there  is  not  an  immersed  per- 
son here,  in  any  doubt  about  immersion, 
nor  will  you  be  while  living,  nor  when 
dying. 

But  I  wonder  not  if  you  arc  in  doubt 
about  sprinkling  or  pouring.  You  have 
reason  to  doubt;  not,  as  Mr.  M.  has  said, 
because  you  are  "ignorant  and  inexperi- 
enced," but  because  he  started  out  with  the 
statement,  that  the  "  mode  is  not  definitely 
revealed" — stating  tliat  "baptism  is  not 
sprinkling,  pouring  nor  immersion,  as 
such,"  and  making  this  statement  good,  so 
far  as  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  concerned, 
by  failing  to  find  a  single  reference  to 
either  in  the  Bible,  or  any  thing  written  in 
the  first  two  centuries — by  his  reference  to 


550  DEBATE   ON   THE 

the  word  sprinJde,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
where  he  knew  there  was  nothing  about 
baptism.  I  wonder  not  that  you  doubt 
sprinkling  for  baptism,  when  you  hear 
Mr.  M.  quote  the  words,  "  pour  out  my 
Spirit,"  to  prove  that  baptism  is  pour- 
ing, and  then  infer  that  to  baptize  the 
ends  of  the  fingers,  and  lay  them 
on  the  forehead,  is  baptism !  ]S"o  won- 
der that  you  doubt  this  being  baptism,  es- 
pecially when  you  think  of  the  effort  of 
Mr.  M.  to  justify  it!  You  cannot  help 
feeling  unsettled,  when  you  know  that  he 
admits  and  practices  immersion  ;  but  then 
denies  that  there  is  any  Scripture  for  it  j 
then  contends  that  there  was  not  water  in 
Jerusalem  to  immerse  ;  then  imagines  all 
the  pools  in  Jerusalem  were  under  locks, 
and  the  keys  in  the  pockets  of  the  priests ; 
then,  the  "  certain  water,"  where  Philip 
baptized  the  eunuch,  was  a  wet  weather 
stream,  and  had  no  water  in  it;  then  John 
the  Baptist  could  not  have  immersed  the 
great  numbers  said  to  have  been  baptized 
by  him,  and  the  three  thousand  could  not 
have  been  immersed  by  the  twelve  Apos- 
tles on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  JSTo  wonder 
that  you  feel  unsettled,  when  you  listen  to 
all  this  vacillating  and  objecting,  and  wind- 
ing and  twisting.  You  can  not  see  manly 
reason  perverted,  and  thus  put  to  the  rack, 
to  bring  something  out  of  nothing.  You 
can  not  see  an  effort  to  make  out  a  case  of 
sprinkling,  inferred  from  a  baptism   in  a 


ACTION   OP   BAPTISM.  551 

house,  and  no  proof  there  was  ever  one  in 
a  house  !  No  wonder  that  the  members  of 
his  church  are  not  satisfied  with  his  "  ex- 
pounding baptism."  Iso  wonder  that  there 
is  nothing  settled  on  the  subject,  and  that 
every  man  does  what  seems  good  in  his 
own  eyes,  in  his  church  !  How  can  there 
be  any  stability  ?  The  preacher  tells  them 
that  "  baptism  is  not  sprinkling,  pouring 
nor  immersing,  as  such  " — that  "  the  mode 
is  not  definitely  revealed  " — that  "baptism 
is  pouring,  for  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  " 
— that  it  is  sprinkling,  for  the  word  sprinkle 
is  found  connected  with  the  Jewish  cere- 
monies, etc.,  etc.  The  true  state  of  the 
case  is,  that  the  gentleman  has  no  doctrine 
on  this  subject,  and  no  position,  only  to  op- 
pose me,  to  involve  the  whole  matter  in 
doubt  and  uncertainty.  But  this  can  not 
be  done.  If  there  is  any  thing  certain  in 
all  our  knowledge,  it  is  certain  that  im- 
mersion is  baptism.  He  who  is  immersed  is 
certainly  baptized.  If  an  earthly  inherit- 
ance, amounting  to  five  thousand  dollars, 
were  depending  upon  a  man  being  certain- 
ly baptized,  not  a  man  in  this  house  would 
risk  sprinkling  or  pouring.  You  would 
say.  They  all  agree  that  immersion  is  bap- 
tism;  ihey  do  not  agree  that  sprinkling  is 
baptism ;  I  will  take  that  about  which  there 
is  no  dispute.  If  j^ou  do  what  the  Lord 
commands,  it  is  obedience  to  him  ;  if  you  do 
not,  it  is  not  obedience  ;  if  you  vould  cer- 
tainly obey  him,  in  baptism,  be  immersed. 


552  DEBATE    ON    THE 

MR.  MERRILL'S  CLOSING  REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

You  have  now  beard  all  the  gentleman 
has  to  say  in  behalf  of  bis  proposition,  that 
immersion  is  the  only  baptism  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  or  practiced  by  the  Apostles. 
With  the  aid  of  admissions  cheerfully  made, 
he  has  succeeded  in  proving  that  immersion 
xcill  do  !  He  has  only  cited  one  example  of 
apostolic  practice — and  that  was  not  the 
practice  of  an  Apostle,  but  of  Philip  the 
evangelist !  Of  course,  the  example  of 
Philip  would  do  as  well  as  any,  if  it  could  be 
made  out  in  favor  of  my  friend,  but  it  does 
not  sustain  him.  I  refer  to  it  here  to  show 
the  extent  of  the  gentleman's  resources,  and 
the  amount  of  his  confidence,  in  apostolic 
practice !  And  he  virtually  admits  that  the 
Scriptures  mention  baptisms  which  were 
not  by  immersion  ;  for  he  refused  to  exam- 
ine the  legal  washings,  called  "  divers  bap- 
tisms," on  the  ground  that  they  were  not 
the  ordinance — not  Christian  baptism  with 
"something  more" — but  Jewish  ceremo- 
nies !  He  perhaps  forgot  that  the  proposi- 
tion framed  by  himself,  relates  to  all  the 
baptisms  taught  in  the  Scriptures !  He 
knows  very  well  that  many  of  these  Jewish 
baptisms  were  by  sprinkling ;  that  not  one 
of  them  was  required  by  the  law  to  be  done 
by  immersion  ;  and,  consequently,  he  passed 
them  over  by  trj'ing  to  divert  your  atten- 
tion from  them  !   He  poured  contemiDt  upon 


ACTION   OP    BAPTISM.  553 

the  baptisms  enjoined  by  the  law,  and  Avax- 
ed  eloquent  in  declaiming  upon  the  superior 
light  of  the  gospel !  But,  let  it  be  fixed  in 
the  mind  that  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  Apostles,  were  all  Jews  ;  that  the 
law  was  in  force  until  the  Savior  died  ;  that 
the  Jewish  washings  by  sprinkling  were 
called  baptisms  ;  that  all  their  religious  puri- 
fications were  baptisms  ;  that  no  intimation 
is  any  where  given  that  the  manner  of  us- 
ing the  water  was  ever  changed  from  the 
prevailing  custom  of  the  Jews ;  and  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  design  or  import  of 
Christian  baptism  that  required  the  mode 
to  be  changed,  and  then  the  conclusion  is  ir- 
resistible that  the  Apostles  baptized  as  the 
Jews  before  them  did — by  sprinkling.  But 
the  worthy  gentleman  has,  according  to 
promise,  "  reafiirmed"  his  former  positions, 
which  were  consecutively  met,  answered, 
and  refuted.  He  has  dished  them  out  again 
with  all  the  assurance  imaginable,  and  we 
must  glance  at  the  "  recapitulation." 

1.  His  first  argur-"ient  was  shown  clearly 
to  be  nothing  but  a  sophism — a  begging  of 
the  question.  The  one  word  was  the  one 
which  he  came  here  to  prove  univocal ;  but 
his  first  argument  only  aims  to  prove  what 
nobody  disputes,  that  the  word  is  uniformly 
used  ;  while  it  assumes  that  it  is  uniformly 
used  in  the  specific,  and  not  in  the  generic 
sense.  His  statement  of  my  method  of  set- 
ting this  argument  aside  was  all  wrong. 
He  paid  no  attention  to  my  reply,  for  the 
best  of  reasons. 


554  DEBATE   ON   THE 

2.  His  second  is  a  baseless  assertion 
against  the  facts  in  the  case.  It  would  prove 
nothing,  if  admitted  ;  but,  even  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  there  was  a  strong  inclination  to 
leave  the  simple,  unpretending  rites  of 
Christianity,  for  something  more  pompous, 
burdensome  and  oppressive.  This  was  af- 
terwards done  for  the  purpose  of  competing 
with  the  imposing  ceremonies  of  the  pagan 
temples.  This  spirit  led  to  the  immersion 
of  the  naked  body  three  times,  accompanied 
by  many  superstitious  practices,  some  of 
which  are  abandoned,  but  many  of  which 
are  practiced  by  the  Eomish  and  Greek 
churches  to  this  day. 

3.  His  third  argument  is  just  nothing  at 
all.  Neither  the  Discipline,  Wesley,  Clarke, 
Calvin,  Luther,  nor  your  humble  servant, 
sanctions  the  proposition  before  us.  We 
admit  that  immersion  will  do,  because  it  is 
not  forbidden,  and  because  no  other  mode 
is  £0  strictly  enjoined  as  to  be  essential  to 
the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  If  the  ad- 
ministrator, the  subject,  and  the  motive,  are 
all  right,  the  manner  of  using  the  water  will 
not  affect  the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  All 
the  great  men  named  sustain  me  in  this. 

4.  The  gentleman's  ridiculous  assertions 
about  the  immersed  being  "  satisfied,"  are 
worthy  of  no  better  name  than  clap-trap. 
He  occasionally  finds  an  inexperienced,  or 
uneducated,  or  disaftected  member  of  our 
church,  and  employs  his  whole  resource  of 
ridicule,  sarcasm,  and  boisterous  declama- 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  555 

tion,  and,  above  all,  his  "  safe"  argument, 
until  he  gets  the  person  confused  and  fright- 
ened, and  then  he  "  stretches"  his  imagina- 
tion to  the  conclusion  that  the  whole  church 
is  in  trouble  !  His  assertions  on  this  point 
are  to  be  taken  at  about  ninety-eight  per 
cent,  discount !  And  if  a  disposition  to 
meddle  and  dispute  with  others  on  the  sub- 
ject is  any  evidence  of  dissatisfaction — and 
that  it  is,  no  one  can  doubt — then  immer- 
sionists  are  the  most  dissatisfied  people  in 
the  world ! 

5.  If  the  gentleman  had  traced  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Greek  Church  up  to  the  Apostles, 
he  would  have  made  an  argument — but  it 
would  have  condemned  us  both  !  But  this 
he  did  not  do.  His  argument,  therefore,  is 
about  as  strong  as  if  I  should  claim  to  un- 
derstand Dutch,  on  the  ground  that  my 
great  grandfather  was  of  G-erman  descent ! 
If  any  one  should  seek  acquaintance  with 
the  language  of  the  Scriptures  by  sojourn- 
ing in  modern  Grreece,  all  intelligent  men 
would  pronounce  the  effort  the  essence  of 
folly. 

6.  In  regard  to  the  writers  of  the  first  two 
centuries,  the  gentleman  and  myself  are  in 
precisely  the  same  predicament.  He  has 
been  utterly  unable  to  produce  the  language 
of  any  writer  of  that  period  who  speaks  of 
immersion  for  baptism.  The  pretence  that 
the  inspired  writers  do  this,  is  begging  the 
question.  Why  did  he  mention  the  writers 
of  that  period,  if  his  appeal  was  to  the  Scrip- 


556  DEBATE    ON   THE 

tures?  And  why  did  he  excuse  himself 
from  proving  immersion  from  the  writers 
of  that  time  on  the  pitiful  pretense  that  I 
was  demanding  the  original  manuscripts — 
and  then,  that  I  admit  immersion,  and  am 
as  much  bound  to  give  authority  for  it  as 
he  is? 

7.  His  failure  to  give  authority  for  im- 
mersion for  the  first  two  centuries,  is  fatal 
to  the  sweeping  declarations  which  he  la- 
belled his  seventh  argument.  And  the  fact 
that  the  dark  ages  settled  down  upon  the 
church  in  the  palmy  days  of  immersionism, 
is  undisputed  ;  while  his  repeated  assertions 
about  immersionism  increasing  with  the  in- 
crease of  light,  are  too  palpably  erroneous 
to  need  refutation. 

8.  His  argument  for  immersion  on  the 
ground  that  it  can  be  substituted  for  bap- 
tize, is  unsupported.  The  rule,  as  applied 
to  translations,  is  not  good.  The  gen  tleman 
refused  to  try  it  in  case  of  circumcision. 
That  means  "cutting  round;"  but  you  can 
not  induce  the  gentleman  to  put  "  cutting 
round"  wherever  circumcision  occurs.  JSfor 
does  immerse  give  good  sense  wherever  hap- 
tizo  occurs.  Mr.  CamiDbell  himself  would 
not  venture  to  publish  a  translation  with 
immerse  in  everyplace  for  baptize.  In  one 
place  he  refused  to  give  us,  "John  immersed 
with  the  immersion  of  repentance,"  etc. ;  that 
would  have  been  too  bad.  He  preferred 
saying,  John  administered  the  immersion  of 
repentance  ;  making  this  variation  without 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  557 

authority.  Baptizo  never  means  adminis- 
ter. This  is  not  new  matter,  but  a  reply  to 
"vvhat  the  gentleman  introduced.  The  gen- 
tleman uses  this  argument  not  because  of 
its  soundness,  so  much  as  because  it  gives 
him  room  to  play  on  the  words  sprinkle  and 
pour.  The  reason  why  we  can  not  trans- 
late haptizo  by  sprinkle  or  pour,  is  not  that 
it  never  means  an  action  performed  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  but  that  it  is  a  gen- 
eric term,  and  can  not  be  fully  expressed  by 
any  specific  term.  The  passages  the  gentle- 
man quotes  with  the  word  sprinkle  sup- 
plied, are  ridiculous  enough  with  that  ren- 
dering ;  but  the  trouble  with  the  gentleman 
is,  he  misrepresents  us  in  this,  after  being 
fully  assured  that  we  do  not  want  any  such 
translations !  If  I  were  contending  that 
haptizo  means,  specifically,  to  sprinkle,  or  to 
2)our,  his  argument  would  be  valid ;  but  you 
know,  and  he  knows,  and  we  all  know  that 
such  is  not  the  case.  Hence,  this  argument 
is  nothing  but  a  quibble — a  pitiful  dodge  I 

9.  The  lexicon  argument  is  all  against  my 
friend.  The  lexicons  all  give  more  than  one 
meaning  to  hapto  and  haptizo^  thus  contra- 
dicting him.  Then  the  classic  use,  to  which 
they  mostly  refer,  is  not  the  source  of  ap- 
peal, though  that,  too,  is  against  him,  as  we 
have  seen.  JSTor  is  the  question  as  to  the 
firsts  but  as  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the 
words,  at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  bap- 
tism. This  can  only  be  determined  by  ap- 
peal to  Bible  use.  That  appeal  I  have  made, 
and  it  condemns  my  friend  hopelessly. 


558  DEBATE    ON    THE 

10.  The  fact  stated  in  the  tenth  argument 
is  not  disputed ;  but  the  use  and  application 
of  it  is  all  denied,  and  not  merely  denied, 
but  proven  incorrect.  ISTo  one  wishes  to 
change  the  three  words  (in  the  passage  quo- 
ted) for  each  other.  Nor  is  the  dip  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense  of  immerse.  An 
immersion  in  the  case  would  be  impossible. 
The  priest  could  not  immerse  his  jfinger  from 
the  oil  in  his  hand.  But  the  whole  argu- 
ment goes  on  the  false  supposition  that  I  am 
claiming  hapto  to  be  a  specific  word,  expres- 
sive of  some  one  of  the  three  modes  !  I  claim 
no  such  thing — but  have  established  the  con- 
trary by  my  opponent's  most  favorite  critic  ! 
To  claim  that  hapto  or  haptizo  is  the  specific 
word  for  dip  or  immerse,  as  this  argument 
does,  is  not  only  to  beg  the  question,  but  to 
overlook  the  fact  known  and  established  that 
the  Greeks  used  katccduo  and  not  haptizo  to 
denote  immersion. 

11.  Any  further  allusion  to  King  James' 
translators  would  be  superfluous.  They  ren- 
dered haptizo  dip  once  in  the  Old  Testament, 
where  Naaman  did  an  act  in  the  name  of  the 
Grod  of  Israel,  and  in  obedience  to  the  com- 
mand to  wash  himself.  Bajytizo  was  used  not 
to  express  the  mode  of  the  washing  com- 
manded, but  to  give  an  idea  of  its  religions 
character.  It  retains  its  generic  sense.  Their 
rendering  of  hapto  in  the  New  Testament  is 
not  against  me  at  all,  and  has  been  exam- 
ined sufficiently. 

12.  His  repetitions  about  going  down  into 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  55 

the  water  and  coming  np  out  of  the  water, 
have  all  been  answered.  They  prove  noth- 
ing but  the  locality  of  the  baptisms.  It  is 
only  the  sound,  and  not  the  meaning,  of 
these  phrases,  the  gentleman  depends  upon, 
as  before  shown. 

13.  He  never  told  you  what  Enon  was  ! 
But  this  passage  j^roves  nothing  about  the 
manner  of  baptizing.  The  "much  water" 
was  wanted,  whether  he  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling, or  ponring,  or  immersion.  This  was 
not  denied. 

14.  The  argument  from  the  burial  was  a 
decided  failure.  He  contends  for  a  literal 
burial — that,  with  him,  was  immersion ;  but 
I  showed  you  that  if  the  burial  was  literal, 
so  was  the  death !  Did  he  answer  it  ?  I 
showed  that  the  burial  was  an  effect — a  fig- 
urative burial,  not  in  nor  into  the  water,  but 
into  the  death  of  Christ.  Did  he  reply  ?  I 
showed  that  we  must  remain  buried.  Did  he 
"  satisfy"  any  hody  that  the  burial  was  a 
momentary  thing  ?  I  think  not.  I  showed 
you  that  he  mistakes  the  points  of  the  com- 
parison altogether.  Did  he  attempt  to  re- 
ply ?  He  knew  better  !  I  also  showed  that 
he  confounds  the  sacraments,  making  bap- 
tism occupy  the  place  and  design  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  Did  he  respond ?  Not  he! 
That  would  have  taken  him  to  the  legal  and 
moral  aspects  of  the  Christian  system.  He 
dared  not  venture. 

15.  The   figurative   ex2:>ression,    "born  of 
water,"   was  taken  from  him,  his  immodest 

37 


560  DEBATE    ON   THE 

use  of  it  exposed,  and  the  language  shown 
to  have  nothing  to  do  witli  the  manner  of 
baptizing.  Ko  one  here  was  "ashamed"  of 
the  words  of  the  Bible ;  but  many  felt  "  asham- 
ed" of  Mr.  Franklin's  vulgar  exposition  of 
them. 

16.  The  argument  from  "i^lanting"  was 
distinctly  answered  by  itself,  and  more  than 
answered  in  the  exposure  of  the  gentleman's 
reasoning  on  the  burial.  I  could  not  get 
him  to  see  the  word  "crucified"  in  the  same 
passage,  which  is  just  as  plain  an  allusion  to 
the  mode  of  baptism  as  the  "planting,"  or 
the  "burial."  Can  anyone  give  a  reason 
for  this  ? 

17.  Heb.  X.  22,  was  shown  to  contain  no 
allusion  to  baptism,  in  any  way,  and  yet  the 
gentleman  quotes  it,  with  any  amount  of 
gusto,  just  because  the  washing  of  the  body 
is  mentioned.  It  alludes  to  the  legal  wash- 
ing required  by  the  Mosaic  law — it  is  one  of 
the  ceremonies  the  gentleman  esteems  so 
lightly !  It  might  have  been  one  of  the 
"  divers  baptisms,"  which  was  done  when 
the  clean  person  took  water  and  hyssop  and 
"  sprinkled  upon  the  unclean  ;"  but  all  this 
is  too  much  like  "  mystification  !"  The  good 
man  saw  it  w^ould  not  do  to  go  into  such 
"  mystifications !" 

18.  The  argument  from  the  baptism  of 
sufferings,  like  all  the  others,  w^as  based  on 
the  erroneous  supposition  that  I  was  con- 
tending that  haptizo  was  a  sj^ecific  word, 
meaning   to   sprinkle  or  pour,  and  nothing 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  561 

else.  The  word  is  there  iinqnestionably  used 
not  in  its  literal,  bnt  metaphorical  sense,  and 
proves  nothing  whatever  in  regard  to  mode. 
If  it  were  translated  immerse,  the  passage 
would  be  greatly  obscured.  "  Ye  shall  in- 
deed be  immersed  icith  the  immersion  that  I 
am  immersed  with,"  Avould  be  very  poor 
sense,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  But,  allowing 
the  word  to  retain  its  generic  sense,  carry- 
ing also  the  idea  of  a  consecration  or  sancti- 
fication,  and  the  passage  is  not  only  plain, 
but  beautiful  and  grand.  Thus  every  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  has  been  promptly 
and  fairly  met  and  answered. 

I  could  not  get  the  gentleman  to  tell  us 
whether,  in  point  of  fact,  baptism  is  the 
name  of  the  ordinance,  although  he  uses  it 
as  such  all  the  time  !  He  dodged  the  ques- 
tion to  the  last !  I  know  the  word  occurs 
where  Christian  baptism  is  not  meant,  but 
my  question,  as  I  distinctly  told  him,  did 
not  refer  to  any  particular  place  nor  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  but  to  the  fact — and 
now  the  cause  of  his  equivocation  is  mani- 
fest in  the  absurd  position  he  has  taken, 
that  baptism  is  one  thing  and  the  ordinance 
another  thing  !  And  "  this  is  an  end  to  the 
sophistry!" 

But  one  of  the  smallest  things  I  have  to 
notice,  is  his  charge  that  I  have  been  hang- 
ing to  the  skirts  of  Dr.  Eice!  Did  he  not 
"  walk  out  boldly"  upon  the  position  of  Mr. 
Carson,  and  then  very  suddenly  abandon 
his  old  friend  ?     And  did  he  not  walk  in 


562  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  footsteps  of  Alexander  Campbell  all  the 
time?  And  did  he  pretend  to  answer  the 
quotation  I  read  you  from  Mr.  Eice  ?  I 
gave  credit  for  what  I  took  from  the  Doc- 
tor and  the  o'entleman  can  onlv  answer  it 
by  sneering  at  the  man  !  This  is  fair  and 
honorable  debating ! ! 

In  noticing  my  quotation  from  Origen,  the 
learned  Greek  father,  the  gentleman  pre- 
sumes to  tell  you  that  he  does  not  use  bap- 
tizo  for  pouring  !  But  it  can  not  be  ques- 
tioned that  the  water  was  poured  upon  the 
wood,  the  victim  and  the  altar,  and  Origen 
says  the  action  was  baptism.  Mr.  F.  thinks 
the  wood,  the  victim  and  the  altar  were  all 
immersed — immersed  by  pouring!  Hard 
run,  is  he  not  ?  I^o,  sir ;  my  friend  is 
caught ;  he  feels  it  sensibly,  and  knows 
there  is  no  escape  for  him !  The  oifering 
had  to  be  "w^ashed"  before  the  Lord,  or 
consecrated  by  w^ater,  and  haptizo  was  the 
very  term  to  express  the  action.  In  point 
of  fact,  the  mode  was  pouring ;  but  the 
whole  action  together,  as  a  religious  conse- 
cration, was  a  baptism.  Thus  this  old  Greek 
father  understood  it ;  and  his  testimony  is 
worth  a  thousand  such  arguments  as  my 
friend  has  brought.  And  the  gentleman, 
finding  himself  completely  fast,  begins  to 
complain  that  this  idea  of  "consecration" 
was  kept  back  till  he  could  have  no  chance 
to  reply !  This  is  a  mistake.  It  was  ad- 
vanced in  my  fifth  reply,  at  the  same  time 
that  I  asked  the  gentleman  to  give  us  one 


ACTION    OF   BAPTISM.  563 

single  word  that  would  be  a  full  equivalent 
for  the  Greek  hades — but  he  who  never 
gets  "confused,"  did  not  hear  it!  ISTor  did 
he  give  the  equivalent  for  hades — because 
he  could  not !  If  he  wished  to  answer  it, 
he  might  have  done  it  in  his  last  speech,  in- 
stead of  repeating  some  of  his  assertions 
which  he  had  before  given  some  fifteen  or 
twenty  times.  But  if  he  had  six  days  he 
could  not  answer  it.  The  truth  is,  the  posi- 
tion is  incontrovertible !  But  did  you  no- 
tice the  "  adroitness"  of  the  gentleman  in 
asking  if  the  Assyrian  king  was  "  conse- 
crated" with  the  dews  of  heaven?  Now  he 
knew,  when  asking  that  question,  that  hap- 
tizo  does  not  occur  in  that  case ;  and  he 
knew  that  bajoto^  translated  wet,  does  not,  in 
that  place,  mean  dip  or  immerse  ;  and  he  felt 
conscious  that  his  argument  was  weakened 
by  his  not  attempting  to  notice  that  exam- 
ple of  the  use  of  hajyto  ;  so  he  referred  to  it 
in  this  insinuating  way,  that  it  might  not 
be  said  he  refused  to  allude  to  it !  Shame  ! 
Yes,  sir,  the  Savior  was  "  consecrated"  by 
his  sufferings.  That  is  the  very  sense  in 
which  the  baptism  of  sufferings  is  to  be  un- 
derstood. It  can  not  be  denied,  that  when 
the  Savior  died  uj)on  the  cross,  there  was 
the  most  complete  consecration  this  world 
ever  witnessed  !  I  therefore  take  the  ground 
that  wherever  there  is  a  baptism  mention- 
ed, in  the  Scriptures,  there  was  a  religious 
rite — a  consecration.  Again,  the  gentleman 
speaks  of  baptizo  being  used  in  a  "  latitudi- 


504  DEBATE   ON    THE 

nous  sense,"  as  quoted  by  Carson  ;  but  the 
truth  isy  I  never  spent  so  much  as  one 
"breath"  over  any  such  example  from  Car- 
son. Baptizo  occurs  in  no  passage  by  me 
quoted  from  Carson  !  Was  the  gentleman 
confused  !  What  say  you  to  such  blunder- 
ing as  this  ?  So  far  as  mode  is  concerned, 
hapto  and  haptizo  are  one ;  but  baptizo,  and 
not  hapto,  is  used  in  the  religious  sense. 
Carson  shows  and  proves,  and  my  friend 
now  admits,  that  hajjto  occurs  Avhere  there 
is  no  reference  to  immersion  ;  this  is  demon- 
strated and  settled  ;  and  so  far  as  mode  is 
concerned,  my  friend  has  claimed  no  differ- 
ence between  the  words ;  for  he  knows  there 
is  no  difference  :  then,  after  all  his  boasting, 
he  has  yielded  the  point,  and  given  up  every 
thing  essential  to  the  argument!  Yes,  it  is 
very  true,  that  words  lose  their  first  meaning 
by  use ;  this  is  what  I  have  insisted  upon  as 
the  reason  for  caring  so  little  about  the  first 
or  primary  meaning  of  these  words,  while  I 
was  so  careful  to  seek  their  proprr  meaning 
in  use.  Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language  ; 
and  use,  both  in  the  Bible  and  out  of  it, 
has  borne  unequivocal  testimony  against 
my  friend;  and  now  he  admits  it — though, 
perhaps,  inadvertently ! 

I  have  no  particular  desire  to  recapitu- 
late. My  arguments  have  been  heard,  and 
need  no  repetition.  The  ground  I  occupy 
is  clear,  broad  and  scriptural.  The  word 
baptizo  is  not  specific  but  generic.  It  does 
not  express  mode.     It  expresses  an  action, 


ACTION    OF    BAPTISM.  565 

but  not  the  mode  of  an  action  merely,  as 
my  friend  thinks.  It  expresses  the  real 
character  of  the  action  as  a  religious  conse- 
cration. Every  action  has  its  mode.  There 
is  no  action  without  a  mode ;  hence  my 
friend's  repudiation  of  the  word  mode  is 
nothing  but  a  flimsy  quibble.  It  was  one 
of  the  most  pitiful  little  dodges  that  ever 
so  great  a  man  as  Mr.  Campbell  is,  was 
guilty  of.  Baptism  was  practiced  by  the 
Jews  ;  their  ceremonial  purifications,  or  re- 
ligious washings,  were  called  baptisms. 
These  were  not  immersions,  but  baptisms. 
Every  ordinance  and  every  element,  and,  I 
may  say,  every  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  was 
adumbrated  in  the  law.  The  passover  was 
merged  into  the  Lord's  supper;  and  the 
legal  washings,  the  "  divers  baptisms,"  of 
the  law,  were  merged  into  Christian  bap- 
tism. "We,  therefore,  have  "  one  baptism," 
and  not  many.  That  one  baptism  is  an  or- 
dinance in  the  church  of  Christ  forever.  It 
is  a  covenant  act,  a  religious  consecration  ; 
all  that  belongs  to  it  as  a  religious  rite,  all 
that  pertains  to  the  ordinance,  is  contained 
in  the  generic  term.  Baptism.  This  is  plain, 
clear,  unequivocal.  There  is  no  confusion 
in  it,  nor  darkness.  Baptism  was  a  Jewish 
rite.  It  grew  out  of  the  requirements  of 
the  law ;  but,  as  a  Jewish  rite,  it  was  not  so 
solemn,  so  important,  so  comprehensive,  as 
it  became  afterwards.  The  Savior  raised 
it  to  the  dignity  of  a  sacrament,  and  made 
it  at  once  the  only  external  emblem  of  the 


566  DEBATE    ON   THE 

office  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
sign  and  seal  of  our  salvation,  ^o  specific 
term  expressive  of  more  mode,  would  com- 
prehend its  meaning.  To  try  to  translate 
it  by  any  specific  loord,  is  the  bight  of  folly. 
From  this  position  I  have  not  swerved  for 
one  moment. 

My  arguments  were  not  designed  to  show 
that  baptizo  should  be  translated  sprinkle  or 
pour  ;  but  that  the  word  does  not  prescribe 
the  precise  form  of  using  the  water.  We 
gather  the  mode  not  from  positive  law,  for 
there  is  none ;  but  from  the  practice  of  the 
Jews  and  the  Apostles,  together  with  its 
spiritual  signification.  This  is  not  para- 
doxical. The  use  of  lapto  and  haptizo, 
proves  that  the  mode  is  not  immersion. 
The  bird,  the  hyssop,  the  cedar  wood  and 
the  scarlet,  that  were  dipped  in  the  blood  of 
the  bird  slain,  over  running  water,  were  not 
immersed  in  the  blood.  Did  Mr.  F.  answer 
this  ?  Nebuchadnezzar  was  not  immersed  in 
dew,  but  he  was  wet  with  it.  Did  Mr.  F. 
answer  this  ?  Did  he  try  ?  And  what  at- 
tention did  he  give  to  the  example  of  wash- 
ing (baptizing)  "from  a  dead  body?"  This 
the  law  required  to  be  done  by  "  sprink- 
ling;" and  as  it  was  a  religious  rife,  it  was 
expressed  by  haptizo.  All  these,  and  many 
more  examples,  stand  against  my  friend. 
And  did  he  "  satisfy  "  you  that  all  the  Isra- 
elites were  immersed  on  "dry  land?"  Did 
he  prove  that  three  thousand  were  im- 
mersed on  Pentecost?    He  laughed  about 


ACTION   OF   BAPTISM.  567 

the  pools  being  under  lock  and  key ;  but 
did  he  tell  where  they  were  baptized?  No; 
nor  he  could  not.  Learned  men  know  that 
if  they  were  immersed  at  all,  it  must  have 
been  in  Bethesda ;  but  is  it  probable  that, 
under  all  the  circumstances,  they  could  get 
the  use  of  that  pool?  Did  he  prove  this 
case  practicable  ?  Not  he  !  And  the  three 
plain  cases  of  baptism  in  the  house — did  he 
get  any  one  of  them  out  of  the  building  ? 
Not  one !  Did  he  find  the  river  in  the 
"  desert" — starting  south  of  Jerusalem,  and 
running  over  or  through  the  range  of  moun- 
tains ?  Not  yet !  Did  he  show  that  im- 
mersion is  practicable  wherever  human  be- 
ings live  ?  No ;  nor  no  man  living  can  do 
that !  Did  he  show  that  immersion  is  ne- 
cessary to  complete  the  signification  of  bap- 
tism ?  He  made  no  such  attempt.  What, 
then,  has  he  done?  He  has  pulled  the  one 
and  only  string  he  has  left — that  it  is  "  safe  " 
to  be  immersed  !  This  special  pleading  is 
the  beginning  and  ending  of  his  arguments ! 
But  it  is  always  safe  to  do  right.  It  is  safe 
to  be  baptized  in  the  house  as  Paul  was. 
Did  he  produce  the  law  requiring  the 
Savior  to  be  immersed?  Not  he.  That 
would  have  taken  him  back  amongst  the 
types,  where  there  is  too  much  "sprinkling!" 
Then  what  has  he  done?  Nothing  but  cry 
out,  "it  is  safe!"  Now  I  have  done.  I 
have  only  to  remark  that  pouring 
and  sprinkling  are  not  really  different 
modes.      The    Spirit    was     poured    out — 


568    DEBATE  ON  THE  ACTION  OP  BAPIISM. 

shed  forth,  and  it  "fell;"  all  alluding  to 
rain.  Eain  descending  may  be  called 
sprinkling  or  pouring;  but  it  gives  the  most 
beautifal  and  correct  idea  of  the  manner  of 
baptism  that  we  can  find  any  where.  In 
whatever  form  water  is  made  to  signify  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  it  may  be  used  in  bap- 
tizing ;  for  baptism  is  the  standing  symbol 
of  the  Spirit  at  work  for  our  salvation.  The 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  the  foundation  of  bap- 
tism. The  whole  office  of  the  Spirit  is  sym- 
bolized by  baptism.  All  the  JcAvish  wash- 
ings and  sprinklings  once  typified  this,  but 
the  types  are  merged  into  this  holy  sacra- 
ment. But  baptism  is  not  a  burial,  nor  is 
an  emblem  of  the  burial  of  Christ ;  it  relates 
not  to  the  work  of  Christ,  but  to  the  Spirit. 
Baptism,  without  the  Spirit,  is  nothing  but 
an  empty  show.  May  we  all  learn  this  les- 
son, and  live  accordingly ! 


[end   of    second    PROPOSITION.] 


:■■■  %////j^.irfr  /fj-'''i; 


■i^'f^A 


l^^^^^• 


i^^fci^i-^iVV 


